Ownership 


AND 


J\(atural  J^ght 


BY 

Rev.  R.  I.  HOLAIND,  S.  J 

^professor  of  €tl)U0, 

Woodstock  College,  Maryland. 


Baltimore  and  New  York: 
HILL  & HARVEY,  PUBLISHERS. 


1887. 


COPYRIGHT 

BY 

HILL  Cy-  HAR  VE  F, 
1887. 

All  rights  rese7'ved. 


Pref^H  of 

FlJJlJlS,  BKATTY&CO.  . 
linlfimore,  Md. 


AN  OPEN  LETTER. 


To  His  Eminence  James  Cardinal  Gibbons. 

Your  Eminence  : 

When  I solicited  your  approbation 
On  for  my  little  work  on  Ownership  and  Natural  Right,  you 
\ were  kind  enough  to  write  to  me : I regard  such  a work 

as  most  timely.  ...  It  will  command  widespread  attention, 
and  will  not  fail  to  exercise  a salutary  influence.’’ 

In  a subsequent  conversation,  you  expressed  an  earnest 
wish  that  the  position  of  the  Catholic  Church  should  be 
well  understood  by  the  laboring  classes.  For,  if  the  Church 
must  maintain,  as  a sacred  trust  confided  to  her  by  God, 
the  principles  which  fence  in  the  right  of  property,  and 
secure  the  foundation  of  social  order ; she  is  also  bound  in 
• virtue  of  her  mission,  to  pour  a healing  balm  on  the  wounds 
of  Lazarus,  and  to  proclaim  to  the  world  the  duties  of  Dives ; 
duties  which  must  be  fulfilled,  if  the  right  of  property  is  to 
remain  inviolate,  and  if  society  is  to  be  saved  from  blood- 
shed and  anarchy. 

Your  Eminence  laid  down  three  propositions,  which,  if 
memory  does  not  play  me  false,  may  be  formulated  as 
follows : 

1st,  The  Church  has  always  been,  and  shall  ever  be, 
the  steadfast  friend  of  the  poor  and  of  the  workingman. 

2nd,  Should  Capitalists  or  Monopolists  combine  to  oppress 
the  poor,  or  to  force  down  wages,  the  Church  would  not  be 

(i) 


found  on  the  side  of  tlie  oppres  ors.  Nor  can  she  use  her 
moral  power  to  prevent  the  wage-workers  from  combining 
to  maintain  their  liberty,  and  vindicate  their  just  rights. 

3rd,  Every  effort  of  the  poor  and  of  the  working  class, 
to  improve  by  lawful  means  their  present  condition,  must 
receive  the  sympathy  and  support  of  the  Catholic  Church. 

These  declarations  are  so  far-reaching,  so  well  calculated 
to  remove  prejudices  and  prevent  misunderstandings,  that  I 
do  not  feel  justified  in  confining  their  usefulness  to  my  own 
personal  instruction.  I must  beg  leave  to  set  them  forth  in 
the  opening  pages  of  a work,  wherein  the  right  of  individual 
ownership,  in  Land  as  well  as  in  Capital,  is  upheld  in  the 
name  both  of  Natural  Law  and  of  Social  Science. 

Your  Eminence’s  most  humble  and  obedient  servant, 

R.  I.  HOLAIND. 


Rev.  Dear  Father: 

You  have  correctly  recorded  in  the  foregoing  lines,  the 
sentiments  I expressed  to  you  at  our  last  interview. 

Faithfully  yours  in  Xt. 

t J.  CARD.  GIBBONS, 

Archbishop  of  Baltimore. 


Baltimore,  Sept.  5,  1887, 


Letter  of  his  Grace  M.  A.  Corrigan,  D.  D., 
Archbishop  of  New  York. 


New  York,  Sept.  22d,  1887. 

Rev.  Dear  Father: 

I heartily  concur  in  the  opinion  ex^ 
pressed  by  His  Eminence,  Cardinal  Gibbons,  of  your  work 
on  Ownership  and  Natural  Rights  The  subject  is  so 
important,  and  of  such  deep  interest,  particularly  at  the 
present  moment,  that  its  elucidation,  according  to  the  dictates 
of  sound  reason,  cannot  but  prove  most  acceptable  and  pro- 
ductive of  very  great  good.  I congratulate  you  on  the 
happy  thought  of  undertaking  so  timely  a task,  as  well  as 
on  the  success  with  which  it  has  been  accomplished. 

I also  unite  with  his  Eminence  in  proclaiming  that  the 
Church  has  ever  been,  and  will  ever  be  the  friend  of  the 
poor.  The  whole  history  of  Christianity  is  a luminous 
proof  of  this  assertion ; whence  Bossuet,  contrasting  the 
condition  of  the  poor  in  Pagan  and  Christian  times,  could 
say  with  truth,  “ The  Church  therefore,  may  be  called  the 
city  of  the  poor,  as  it  is  the  city  of  God.”  For  the  Church, 
as  the  mouth-piece  of  God,  is  debtor  to  all  men,  ^‘to  the 
Greeks  and  to  the  barbarians,  to  the  wise  and  to  the  unwise,” 
proclaiming  and  prescribing  to  all  their  just  rights  and  duties  • 
teaching  with  all  care,  as  St.  Augustine  beautifully  wrote, 
long  ago,  “ to  whom  honor  is  due,  and  affection  . . . and 
exhortation  and  discipline  . . . showing  how  all  of  these 


are  not  equally  suitable  to  all,  but  that  charity  is  due  to  all, 
and  wrong  to  none,''  In  opposing  theories  that  would 
subvert  social  order,  the  Church  whilst  fulfilling  a sacred 
duty,  secures  the  welfare  of  all  classes  of  society,  and  not 
least  of  all,  of  the  poor  ; for  should  these  pernicious  theories 
be  translated  into  facts,  the  laboring  classes  and  the  poor, 
by  losing  their  hard  earnings  which  they  could  least  of  all 
afford  to  spare,  would  be  the  first  to  suffer  and  most  to  be 
pitied.  The  Church,  then,  in  repudiating  false  systems  of 
social  ethics,  proves  herself  the  true  friend  of  the  poor,  and 
we  may  well  repeat  the  words  of  the  Sovereign  Pontiff,  in 
his  Encyclical  of  Nqvember,  1885:  ‘‘The  Church,  the 
immortal  work  of  the  God  of  Mercy,  though  she  looks 
directly  and  essentially  to  the  salvation  of  souls  and  to  their 
obtaining  the  happiness  of  heaven,  is  even  in  temporal 
matters  the  source  of  benefits  as  many  and  as  great  as  if  she 
had  been  established  chiefly  and  above  all  to  insure  the 
prosperity  of  this  life  on  earth.” 

We  owe  you, -Rev.  Dear  Father,  a debt  of  gratitude 
for  confirming  ‘ by  the  light  of  reason  the  teachings  of  the 
Church  on  Ownership  and  Property,  and  trust  that  your 
work  may  dispel  the  mist  of  error  from  the  minds  of  many, 
and  substitute  instead  the  abiding  radiance  of  natural  and 
revealed  truth. 

I am,  Rev.  Dear  Father,  very  truly  yours, 

M.  A.  CORRIGAN, 
Archbishop  of  New  York, 

Rev.  R.  I.  Holaind,  S.  J., 

Woodstock,  Md, 


(iv) 


(Preface. 


Among  the  maxims  of  practical  reason,  several  appeal 
to  the  human  understanding  with  such  evidence,  that 
men  at  large  accept  them  without,  for  a moment,  question- 
ing their  soundness.  Those  principles  stand  in  the  light  of 
axioms  or  postulates,  which  the  masters  of  Moral  Science 
explain  rather  than  demonstrate,  and  which  generation  after 
generation  receives  as  the  inherited  wisdom  of  the  past,  to 
be  bequeathed  to  future  ages,  as  a standard  of  right,  and  a safe 
rule  of  conduct.  The  right  of  property  is  one  of  those 
practical  truths,  which  the  civilized  world  has  held  as  self- 
evident. 

But,  of  late,  every  axiom,  every  postulate,  has  been 
arraigned  before  the  tribunal  of  Science,  and  required  to 
show  cause  why  it  should  command  the  assent  of  ^ankind, 
Ownership  of  every  description^  has  been  assailed  by  Pierre 
Proudhon,  with  a sort  of  blasphemous  fierceness  which ' has 
compelled  both  Christians  and  Scientists  to  turn  away  in 
disgust.  An  eminent  English  writer,  Mr.  'Herbert  Spencer, 
after  granting  the  right  of  property,  has  tried  to  show  that 
it  did  not  extend  to  the  soil,  and  that  individual  ownership, 
to  land  was  a breach  of  Natural  Law.  Mr.  Henry  George 

(V)  ' ' , ■ ' 


VI. 


PREFACE. 


has  made  the  principles  of  Mr.  Spencer  popular ; and  after 
casting  upon  them  the  glamour  of  his  own  brilliant  style, 
has  drawn  the  consequences  with  a fearlessness  which  has 
made  him  at  once  the  standard-bearer  of  those  who  assail 
ownership  of  land. 

Strange  to  say,  many  men  of  learning  have  accepted  the 
premises  of  Mr.  Spencer,  and  demurred  at  the  conclusions 
of  Mr.  George. — 

Gentlemen ! Let  us  be  consistent.  If  no  man  may 
lawfully  own  an  inch  of  ground,  you  cannot  object  to  a land 
tax  which  amounts  to  confiscation.  If  you  do  not  allow  the 
state  to  interfere  with  vested  rights,  give  those  rights  a more 
solid  basis  than  mere  legal  enactments. 

If  we  would  reach  those  first  principles  by  which  human 
actions  must  be  tested,  we  must  turn  to  the  true  standard  of 
morality,  Natural  Law,  which  is  but  an  effulgence  of  the 
divine  will  and  wisdom,  reflected  by  the  will  and  intellect 
of  man.  It  becomes  necessary  to  ascertain  the  boundaries 
of  Natural  and  Positive  Law — a discussion  which  may 
appear  dry,  uninteresting,  and  savormg  of  scholastic  refine- 
ment,  but  which  is  unavoidable,  if  we  must  seek  the  very 
foundation  of  the  right  of  Ownership. 

Candidly,  we  cannot  fight  the  battle  of  truth  on  the 
ground  selected  by  Gen.  Francis  A.  Walker.  In  Scribner’s 
Magazine,  January,  1887,  page  118,  the  learned  economist 
arrives  at  the  following  conclusion  : “ The  advantages  at- 

tending private  ownership,  notwithstanding  the  admitted 


PREFACE. 


Vll. 


fact  that  the  system  sacrifices,  in  its  very  beginning,  the 
equities  of  the  subject  matter,  are  so  manifest,  so  conspic- 
uous, so  vast,  that  there  seems  little  danger  that  the  scheme 
of  Messrs.  Hill,  Wallace,  and  George  will  ever  come  to 
prevail  over  the  plain,  frank,  blunt  common  sense  of  the 
English  race.’^  We  cannot  believe  that  the  common  sense 
of  the  English  race  is  too  blunt,  and  too  plain,  to  take  into 
account  the  equities  of  the  subject  matter ; and  we  emphat- 
ically deny  that  the  equities  of  the  subject  matter  are  on  the 
side  of  Messrs.  Hill,  Wallace,  and  George.  Equity  and 
Expediency  may  seem  at  times  to  part  company,  but,  in  the 
long  run,  they  are  bound  to  meet.  Nothing  unjust  can  be 
truly  expedient.  It  is  the  special  purpose  of  this  little  essay 
to  show  that,  with  regard  to  ownership.  Equity  and  Expe- 
diency stand  together,  with  joined  hands,  beaming  forth 
hope,  if  not  gladness,  unto  all  men  and  all  nations,  that  do 
not  swerve  from  the  path  of  Justice. 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2017  with  funding  from 

University  of  Illinois  Urbana-Champaign  Alternates 


✓ 

https://archive.org/details/ownershipnaturalOOhola 


(^TENTS, 


Chapter  I. — Socialism  and  Communism. 

Professional  Socialists — Wagner,  Von  Ket- 
teler,  Lamotte  Fenelon,  Thomas  More — 
Definition  of  Socialism  and  Communism — Mr. 
Herbert  Spencer — Mr.  Henry  George — Proud- 
hon. 

Chapter  II. — Statement  of  the  Question.  Defi- 
nition  of  Ownership. 

Main  Question  and  Crucial  Test — Definition 
of  Ownership  according  to  Roman  Jurisconsults 
— American  and  English  Lexicons — Various 
Questions  which  Must  be  Solved. 

Chapter  III. — Natural  Law — Jus  gentium — Posi- 
tive Law. 

Difference  between  the  three— -St.  Thomas 
Aquinas,  Lessius,  De  Lugo,  Puffendorf — Insti- 
tutes of  Justinian. 


X. 


CONTENTS. 


Chapter  IV. — The  Right  of  Ownership  demon- 
strated by  Deduction. 

Duty  of  Man  to  accomplish  his  Destiny — 
Necessity  of  Ownership  to  secure  the  fulfill- 
ment of  that  Duty — Collective  Ownership  pre- 
supposes Individual  Ownership — Why  Collec- 
tive Ownership  fails  in  practice — Demonstration 
drawn  from  the  Nature  of  Man,  considered  as 
a free,  responsible  Being. 

Chapter  V. — Ownership  Demonstrated  by  In- 
duction. 

Instinct  of  Animals  and  Natural  Inclination 
of  Men — Taparelli  d’Aseglio,  Thiers — Social 
Development — de  Laveleye,  W.  Roscher. 

Chapter  VI. — Abstract  and  Concrete  Right. 

Messrs.  Bastiat  and  de  Laveleye — Natural 
Equality — Landowner’s  Baby  and  Workhouse 
Baby — Specific  and  Individual  Rights. 

Chapter  VII. — What  can  we  Own? — Occupancy 
vs.  Labor. — Increment. 

01)jects  to  be  Owned  must  be  either  Con- 
sumable or  fit  to  bear  the  Stamp  of  Person- 
ality— They  must  be  Limited  in  Quantity — 


CONTENTS. 


XI. 


Occupancy,  Effective,  Legal,  Political — Occu- 
pancy may  be  expressed  in  terms  of  Labor — 
Increment,  Natural,  Artificial,  Unearned. 

Chapter  VIII. — Ownership  in  Land. 

The  leaders  of  modern  thought,  and  Black 
Hawk — Ex-President  Woolsey,  Prof.  Kent, 
Prof.  Stockl,  M.  Thiers,  Prof.  Roscher,  Du- 
pont, I.  Kant,  Locke — Does  Land  differ  es- 
sentially from  those  things  which  are  rightfully 
property — Prof.  Sidgwick — Can  the  value  of 
land  be  easily  distinguished  from  the  value  of 
improvements — Admission  of  Mr.  George — 
Exclusiveness  essential  to  ownership,  found  in 
Tribal  or  National  property — Compensation  or 
no  compensation — Mr.  Spencer  and  Mr.George 
at  variance. 

Chapter  IX. — The  Statics  of  Mr.  Spencer. 

“All  have  equal  rights  to  the  use  of  this 
world”  an  equivocal  statement — Occupancy  of 
the  whole  earth — Are  existing  titles  legitimate? 
— Timie  as  a Legalizer — Another  equivoce! 
statement  of  Mr.  Spencer — The  Squatter  and 
the  Cosmopolite. 


xii 


CONTENTS. 


Chapter  X. — Absolute  or  not  Absolute  ? 

Must  the  right  of  Property  be  absolute,  or 
cease  to  exist  ? — In  what  sense  it  may  be  said 
that  the  right  of  property  is  absolute — Duties 
entailed  according  to  the  nature  of  the  property 
held — Eminent  Domain — Differences  between 
Ownership  and  Usufruct. 

Chapter  XI. — Can  the  State  grant  a Deed  ? 

The  negative  answer  leads  to  an  absurdity — 
Functions  of  the  Government — The  Govern- 
ment does  not  create  the  right,  but  sanctions 
it — Opinions  of  W.  Roscher,  A.  Thiers,  Prof. 
Sidgwick,  S.  Mill,  de  Laveleye,  Ouesnay. 

Chapter  XII. — Abuse  and  Remedy. 

Transfers  of  Capital  due  solely  to  specula- 
tion— Latifundia — Caution  necessary  on  the 
part  of  the  State  in  dealing  with  landed  prop- 
erty— Aristotle  and  Phaleas. 

Chapter  XIII. — Land  Tax. 

Ouesnay,  Adam  Smith,  Turgot,  Storch — 
Opinion  of  Malesherbes  with  regard  to  the 
administration  of  Turgot;  of  Nesselrode,  with 
regard  to  that  of  Storch — Difference  of  opinion 


CONTENTS. 


Xlll. 


between  Ouesnay  and  Mr.  George — What 
would  be  effects  of  land  tax  as  the  sole  tax — 
Equities  of  the  case. 

Chapter  XIV. — Objections  Drawn  from  Political 
Economy. 

First  economic  principle  of  Mr.  George  mis- 
leading, corrected  by  Mr.  de  Laveleye — Own- 
ership in  land  is  not  the  cause  why  material 
progress  fails  to  relieve  poverty — Why  wages 
tend  to  a minimum — Why  we  suffer  from  re- 
curring paroxysms  of  industrial  depression — 
Mulhall,  Mr.  Atkinson,  Mr.  Gunton,  Karl  Marx 
— Speculation,  Over-production,  Transforma- 
tion of  Circulating  into  Fixed  Capital — Back  to 
Aristotle ! 


Conclusion. 


AiT'ENDIX. 


By  whomsoever  the  trees  were  felled  and  the  land  was 
cleared,  even  to  him  belongs  the  field  thus  made,  say  the 
wise  men.  To  him  also  the  deer  belongs  who  first  wounded 
it  with  an  arrow  or  any  other  weapon.” — (Manu.  Book  IX, 
S’loka  44,  Paris,  1830,  Levrault.) 

''We  might  recognize  the  equal  right  to  land,  and  yet 
tyranny  and  spoliation  be  continued.” — (Henry  George, 
Social  Problems^  Chap.  XVIII.,  last  paragraph.) 


WNERSHIP 


AND 


CHAPTER  I. 

SOCIALISM  AND  COMMUNISM. 

What  is  Socialism?  This  question  might  do 
very  well  for  a riddle  or  a conundrum.  Should 
we  answer  that  Socialists  are  men  who  strongly 
express  their  dissatisfaction  with  the  present 
social  adjustments,  our  definition  would  prove 
broad  enough,  but  it  would  have  a beautiful 
vagueness.  There  are  Pr ofessorial  Socialists,  or 
Socialists  of  the  chair,  who  favor  Paternal  gov- 
ernment, i.  e.,  a more  active  State  influence. 
These  gentlemen  are  learned  professors,  who, 
like  Hobbes,  would  set  up  a Leviathan  whose 
strength  none  could  resist ; but  theirs  is  at  least 
a civilized  monster,  well  grounded  in  Hegelian 

ah) 


16 


OWNKKSnil’  AND 


ethics,  and  brimful  of  political  economy.  The 
only  inconvenience  about  it  would  be,  that  feeling' 
its  own  strength,  it  might  crush  initiative,  trample 
down  freedom,  and  enslave  the  people  for  the 
people’s  good.  Americans  prefer  less  fondling, 
and  more  elbow  room.  But  whatever  we  may 
think  of  the  system  itself,  it  is  not  what  common 
people  call  Socialism  ; and  the  term  Socialist  is 
a misnomer  when  applied  to  such  men  as  Wag- 
ner, the  friend  of  Prince  Von  Bismarck.  Much 
more  do  we  object  to  the  coupling  of  this  word 
with  names  which  ought  to  remain  embalmed  in 
the  memory  of  every  true  friend  of  the  human 
race,  the  names  of  Bishop  Ketteler,  Lamotte 
Fenelon,  and  Thomas  More.  The  illustrious 
Bishop  of  Mayence  devoted  the  greater  part  of 
his  life  to  bettering  the  condition  of  the  poor,  the 
workingmen,  and  the  disinherited.  If  this  be 
Socialism,  then  every  true  Christian  is  a Socialist. 
Fenelon  wrote  a work  of  fiction  for  the  in- 
struction of  a prince  who  might  easily  have  been 
led  astray  by  the  false  maxim  that  the  people  is 
for  the  prince,  not  the  prince  lor  the  people.  In 
the  twelfth  book,  he  sketches  a plan  of  paternal 
government  which  is  more  beautiful  than  prac- 


NATURAL  RIGHT. 


17 


ticable ; but  not  a trace  bf  Socialism,  in  the 
ordinary  sense  of  the  word,  can  be  found  in  the 
ideal  constitution  of  Salentum.  The  martyr 
chancellor,  whilst  dealing  justice  with  great  firm- 
ness and  integrity,  according  to  the  laws  of 
England,  devoted  a few  leisure  hours  to  a work 
of  fancy,  in  which  he  describes  an  imaginary 
island  where  not  only  the  ten  commandments,  but 
even  the  counsels  of  the  Gospel,  are  carried  out 
as  far  as  possible.  When  such  fictions  are  not 
levelled  at  vested  rights,  not  only  are  they  harm- 
less, but  they  may  help  to  raise  our  standard  of 
social  morality.  The  author  himself  thus  ex- 
pressed his  opinion  of  his  work  : “It  is  no  better 
worthie  than  to  lye  hidden,  in  his  (Thomas  More’s) 
own  land,  or  to  be  consecrated  to  Vulcan.”  Boys 
may  take  the  travels  of  Jules  Verne  as  hard  facts, 
or  the  Coming  Race^  of  Bulwer  Lytton  as  a true 
forecast  of  the  future ; but  grown  men  capable 
of  such  gullibility  would  resemble  a friend  of 
mine,  who  chancing  to  meet  the  truthful  history 
of  Gotham  by  the  venerable  Knickerbocker, 
forthwith  began  to  take  notes,  which  he  meant  to 
use  as  historical  references. 

To  shun  the  blunders  that  spring  from  too 


18 


OWNERSHIP  AND 


broad  a definition,  let  us  call  Socialism : That 
political  system  which  denies  the  right  of  private 
ownership  in  Capital,  in  Land,  or  in  both.  It 
differs  from  Communism  which  denies  every  kind 
of  ownership,  and  asserts  the  individual  as  well 
as  the  specific  equality  of  all  men.  According  to 
these  levellers,  not  only  land  and  capital,  but  also 
wealth  not  available  for  investment,  and  the  very 
pittance  earned  by  daily  toil,  ought  to  be  equally 
divided.  Nay,  some  of  them  go  so  far  as  to 
advocate  a division  of  matrimonial  privileges. 
Karl  Marx  is  the  standard-bearer  of  those  who 
condemn  private  ownership  in  capital ; Mr.  Her- 
bert Spencer  denies  the  right  of  possessing  land, 
and  considers  a wholesale  confiscation  as  lawful, 
on  condition  that  a fair  compensation  be  given  to 
the  land-owners.  Mr.  Henry  George  emphati- 
cally denies  that  any  compensation  is  due ; but 
unwilling  to  convulse  society,  he  resorts  to  a pro- 
gressive land-tax  which  must  gradually  absorb 
the  full  amount  of  the  rent. 

“It  is  only  necessary  to  tax  the  land  up  to  its 
full  value.  Do  that,  and  without  any  talk  about 
dispossessing  landlords,  without  any  use  of  the 
ugly  word  confiscation,  without  any  infringement 


NATURAL  RIGHT. 


19 


of  the  just  rights  of  property,  the  land  would 
become  virtually  the  people’s,  while  the  landlords 
would  be  left  the  absolute  and  unqualified  pos- 
sessors of — their  deeds  of  title  and  conveyance. 
— The  Land  Question.  Chapter  X. 

This  looks  very  much  like  adding  insult  to 
injury.  Since  Mr.  George  admits  private  owner- 
ship in  capital,  denies  it  in  land,  and  can  brook 
no  compensation,  he  is  less  radical  than  Karl 
Marx,  and  more  radical  than  Herbert  Spencer. 
We  might  perhaps  call  him  a mitigated  Socialist 
— Communist,  he  is  not. 

■ .If  he  has  been  often  misunderstood,  he  must 
blame  himself  for  it.  In  one  place  he  preaches 
equality,*  in  another  he  states  that  even  if  pos- 

* “We  have  traced  the  unequal  distribution  of  wealth  which  is  the 
curse  and  menace  of  modern  civilization,  to  the  institution  of  private 
property  in  land  (B.  vi.  C.  2).  ...  We  must  make  land  common  prop- 
erty. ...  It  will  substitute  equality  for  inequality.  . . . The  progress  of 
society  might  be,  and  if  it  is  to  continue,  must  be  toward  equality,  not 
toward  inequality.  ...  If  we  are  all  here  by  the  equal  permission  of 
the  Creator,  we  are  all  here  with  an  equal  title  to  the  enjoyment  of  his 
bounty,  with  an  equal  right  to  the  use  of  all  that  nature  so  impartially 
offers.  This  is  a right  which  is  natural  and  inalienable  ; it  is  a right 
which  vests  in  every  human  being  as  he  enters  the  world,  and  during 
his  continuance  in  the  world,  can  be  limited  only  by  the  equal  right  of 
others.’*  (B.  vii.  C.  i). 

“ Where  there  is  gross  inequality  in  the  distribution  of  wealth,  the 
more  democratic  the  government,  the  worse  it  will  be,”  (B.  x.  C.  4, 
p.  381). 


20 


OWNERSmi'  AND 


sible,  it  would  not  be  desirable;  f in  a third  he 
seems  to  have  no  objection  to  a man  accumula- 
ting as  many  millions  as  he  can.  J Of  course  he 
could  reconcile  these  statements  in  some  way, 
but  those  who  pay  attention  to  the  first,  take  him 
to  be  a communist;  readers  who  meet  the  second, 
think  him  very  conservative,  and  those  who  pay 
more  attention  to  the  third,  are  inclined  to  con- 
sider him  as  a friend  of  the  bloated  capitalist. 

In  his  introduction  to  “Progress  and  Poverty,” 
he  has  the  followino;  strangle  sentence : — 

“What  I have  done  in  this  book,  if  I have 
correctly  solved  the  great  problem  I have  sought 
to  investigate,  is  to -unite  the  truth  perceived  by 
the  school  of  Smith  and  Ricardo,  to  the  truth 
perceived  by  the  school  of  Proudhon  and  Las- 


f “ An  equal  distribution  of  land  is  impossible,  and  everything  short 
of  that  would  only  be  a mitigation,  not  a cure.”  (B.  vi.  C.  i).  “It 
would  be  impossible  to  secure  the  equal  rights  of  all  in  that  way,  even 
if  such  a division  were  not  in  itself  impossible.”  {Social  Problevis,, 
C.  xix). 

“ I do  not  say  that  absolute  equality  could  be  had,  or  w'ould  be 
desiral^lc.”  (Ibid.  C.  viii). 

J “ For  my  part,  I would  put  no  limit  to  acquisition.  No  matter  how 
many  millions  any  man  can  get  by  methods  which  do  not  involve  the 
robbery  of  others — they  are  his;  let  him  have  them.  I would  not  even 
ask  him  for  charity,  or  have  it  dinned  into  his  ears,  that  it  is  his  duty 
to  help  the  poor.”  {Social  Problems,  C.  ix.) 


NATURAL  RIGHT. 


21 


salle,  to  show  that  the  laissez  faire  opens  the 
way  to  a realization  of  the  noble  dreams  of 
Socialism ” 

Now,  what  is  the  truth  perceived  by  the  school 
of  Smith  and  Ricardo?  Laissez  faire? — This  is 
one  of  the  three  formulas  of  the  physiocratic,  not 
of  the  Manchester  school ; it  is  clue  to  Legendre 
and  it  means  that  the  State  should  let  commerce 
and  industry  alone.  It  is  completed  by  the  for- 
mula of  Gournay,  ^Laissez  passer',  i.  e.  do  not 
interfere  with  exchange ; and  that  of  Ouesnay, 

' Pas  trap  goiiverner' , do  not  rule  too  much!  After 
the  acceptance'  of  'Laissez  faire'  the  reader  would 
think  that  Mr.  George  follows  Mr.  Spencer,  and 
is  for  mimimizing  the  action  cf  the  government. 
In  going  over  the  XVIIth  chapter  of  Social 
Problems,  he  may  believe  at  first,  that  this  is  the 
right  construction,  but  before  the  end  of  the 
chapter  he  will  have  found  out  that  the  govern- 
ment is  to  possess  all  the  land,  issue  all  the  money, 
assume  all  the  railroad  business,  control  both 
telegraphs  and  telephones,  take  charge  of  sup- 
plying cities  with  gas,  water,  and  electricity — in 
short,  take  upon  itself  businesses  which  are  in  their 
natu"e  monopolies ; besides  public  instruction, 


22 


OWNEKSIlir  AND 


which  of  its  nature  can  hardly  be  monopoly. 
There  is  very  little  room  left  for  laissez  faire  in 
a government  of  this  kind. 

We  are  not  aware  of  any  particular  truth  per- 
ceived by  Lassalle ; he  simply  explained  Karl 
Marx  to  the  people ; but  as  for  Pierre  Proudhon, 
who  came  before  both,  he  had  something  of  his 
own  to  say,  and  here  it  is : — 

“If  God  did  not  exist,  there  would  be  no  pro- 
prietor ; this  is  the  conclusion  of  Political  Econ- 
omy ; and  the  conclusion  of  science  is,  this  owner- 
ship is  the  crime  of  the  Supreme  Being.  There 
is  for  man  but  one  duty,  it  is  to  deny  God. 
Property  is  the  religion  of  might ! Property  is 
theft ! I own  nothing  in  this  world  but  this 
definition,”  (by  the  way,  he  stole  it  from  Brissot), 
“but  I hold  it  more  precious  than  the  millions  of 
Rothschild ! ” ( Contradictions  Economiques^  Chap. 

XL) 

I spare  the  reader  most  of  the  insane  blasphe- 
mies which  accompany  these  statements. 

Proudhon  does  not  spare  either  Socialists  or 
Communists.  “ Socialism  is  a community  of  evil.” 

“Communists ! I loathe  your  very  looks,  your 
presence  is  a stench  in  my  nostrils  !”  Not  par- 
liamentary ! — Of  course,  Mr.  George  feels  as 


NATURAL  RIGHT. 


23 


much  loathing  as  we  do  for  that  mad  ranting,  but 
why  tell  us  that  he  wants  to  unite  the  truth  per- 
ceived by  Smith  with  that  perceived  by  Proudhon? 
Evidently  Rhetoric  has  played  him  false,  as  it  is 
very  apt  to  do,  when  it  glitters  overmuch. 


24 


OWNERSJIIP  AND 


CHAPTER  II. 

STATEMENT  OF  THE  QUESTION — DEFINITION  OF 

OWNERSHIP. 

To  search  and  test  the  shifting,  and  often  con- 
flicting tenets  of  Socialists,  would  indeed  prove  a 
thankless  task,  but  there  is  one  central  position, 
around  which  all  side-issues  revolve,  and  this 
position  Mr.  George  defines  with  candor  and 
perspicuity : 

“When  it  is  proposed  to  abolish  private  prop- 
erty in  land  the  first  question  that  will  arise  is 
that  of  justice.  . . . The  question  is  not  so  much 
‘is  it  wise’?  as  ...  is  it  right?” 

“This  tendency  of  popular  discussion  springs 
from  a law  of  the  human  mind,  it  rests  upon  a 
vauue  and  instinctive  recognition  of  what  is 

o o 

probably  the  deepest  truth  we  can  grasp.  That 
alone  is  wise  which  is  just,  that  alone  is  enduring 
which  is  right.  ...  I bow  to  that  arbitrament,  and 
accept  this  test.  ...  If  private  property  in  land 
be  just,  then  is  the  remedy  I propose  a false 
one!” — (Progress,  etc.,  B.  VII.'' 

Just  so!  These  are  both  the  main  question 


NATURAL  RIGHT. 


25 


and  the  crucial  test.  Let  us' then  eschew  all  side 
questions,  and  show  that  ownership  in  general, 
and  especially,  ownership  in  land  is  perfectly 
legitimate.  If  Mr.  George’s  name  is  often  met 
with  in  these  pages  it  is  owing  to  the  fact  that  this 
brilliant  writer  is  undoubtedly  the  most  gifted, 
and  most  prominent  defender  of  Socialism*  on  this 
side  of  the  Atlantic.  We  do  not  question  either 
his  intentions  or  his  abilities,  but  we  find  fault 
both  with  his  premises  and  with  his  conclusions. 

“Make  thyself  a definition  of  the  thing  which 
is  presented  to  thee  . . . and  tell  thyself  its  proper 
name.” — (Marcus  Aurelius,  quoted  by  Henry 
George.) 

The  advice  of  the  crowned  stoic,  who  knew  so 
well,  both  how  to  shed  the  blood  of  Christians, 
and  how  to  throw  over  the  Imperial  robes  the 
cloak  of  benevolence  and  pagan  philosophy,  was 
not  new,  even  in  his  time,  and  is  useful,  even  in 
ours.  Since  then  we  have  to  discuss  the  owner- 
ship of  land  let  us  define  what  we  mean  by  the 
term  ownership  or  property. 

The  Roman  jurists  had  defined  it:  “The  right 

* Although  the  nationalization  of  land  is  a distinctly  socialistic 
scheme,  Mr.  George  objects  to  the  name  of  Socialist,  v/e  shall  therefore 
abstain  from  coupling  his  name  with  the  obnoxious  epithet. 


26 


OWNERSIII?  AND 


of  freely  disposing  of  a material  object,  within  the 
limits  of  the  law.”  Three  objections  have  been 
raised  against  this  definition. 

I.  A person  who  has  the  usufruct  oi  an  object, 
b e.  the  right  to  use  it  for  his  own  benefit,  has  the 
free  disposal  of  it  within  the  limits  of  the  law,  and 
yet  usufruct  is  not  ownership ; but  it  may  be 
replied  that  the  disposal,  in  that  case,  is  not  per- 
fectly free,  that  it  is  not  jtis  perfecte  disponendi 
when  it  does  not  involve  the  power  of  making  a 
substantial  change,  of  bartering,  of  alienating,  of 
giving  away,  or  of  possessing  without  limit  of 
time,  or  fear  of  revocation.  The  words  perfecte 
disponendi  seem  to  bar  an  interpretation  which 
would  include  at  the  same  time  both  ownership 
and  usufruct. 

II.  If  right  m re  is  perfect,  how  can  it  be  limited 
by  law  ? To  this  we  ansAver  that  no  human 
right,  which  may  happen  to  conflict  with  an- 
other, is  absolutely  unlimited.  Its  perfection 
consists  in  the  moral  power  of  resisting  any 
counter  claim  of  the  same  order.  Hence  when 
the  jurists  call  the  right  of  ownership  a right  of 
perfect  disposal,  they  always  understand  that  in 
the  exercise  of  it,  man  does  not  assail  a superior 


NATURAL  RIGHT. 


27 


right,  as,  for  instance,  the  right  of  Eminent 

Domain.  But  what  law  can  be  understood  as 

« 

determining  those  limits?  We  answer:  Both 
the  Natural  Law  and  the  Civil  Law,  when  the 
latter  merely  applies  the  principles  of  the  former. 
Later  on,  we  shall  treat  more  at  length  of  this  sort 
of  limitation. 

III.  The  third  objection  is  this  : If  the  right  of 
free  o>x pe^'fect  disposal  belongs  to  the  very  essence 
of  ownership,  then  the  right  also  of  transferring 
property  must  be  included.  Now  we  find  this 
latter  right  wanting  in  the  idea  of  the  most  perfect 
ownership.  For  the  Maker  of  the  Universe  is 
doubtless,  in  an  eminent  degree,  the  owner  of  the 
work  of  his  hands,  and  yet  He  cannot  transfer 
his  sovereign  dominion.  If  then,  where  owner- 
ship is  most  perfect,  the  right  of  transfer  is  not 
found,  it  cannot  be  essential,  and  the  right  of  free 
or  perfect  disposal  must  collapse  with  it. 

This  argument  would  be  conclusive  if  the  words  ' 
had  strictly  the  same  meaning  when  applied  to 
God,  and  when  predicated  of  man.  Between  the 
infinite  necessary  Being  and  the  work  of  His 
hands  there  is  indeed  a like^tess  on  which  one  may 
construct  an  argument  of  analogy  not  of  identity 


28 


OWNEKSIIII'  AM) 


or  absolute  similarity,  and  therefore  any  reasoning 
based  on  this  latter  must  necessarily  be  mislead- 
ing. The  existence  of  man  being  accidental,  his 
most  inalienable  rights  must  needs  follow  the 
condition  of  the  person  that  owns  them.  More- 
over, in  the  application  of  those  rights,  the  rela- 
tions which  spring  up  between  a man  and  the 
various  objects  of  the  material  world  around  him, 
are  themselves  accidental.  Hence  man  may 
transfer  his  rights  to  some  particular  being,  be- 
cause the  concrete  right  does  not  cling  to  the 
substance  of  the  owner.  Not  so  with  God,  who 
is  essentially  the  first  principle  and  last  end  of  all 
things.  His  dominion  cannot  be  severed  from 
his  being,  he  is  necessarily  the  Lord  and  the 
Master  of  all.  Yet  in  that  supreme  ownership 
there  is  a property  which  contains  eminently  the 
right  of  transfer ; yet  if  that  supreme  ownership 
cannot  be  tra^isferred,  it  may  be  communicated ; 
in  God  it  abides  essentially ; in  man  it  exists  by 
participation. 

We  have  mentioned  these  objections  not 
because  they  offer  any  serious  difficulty,  but 
because  they  gave  us  an  opportunity  to  determine 
with  more  accuracy  the  meaning  of  the  old  for- 


NATURAL  RIGHT. 


29 


mula.  Thus  it  appears  that  the  Roman  definition 
is  both  correct  and  pithy ; yet  for  the  sake  of 
greater  distinctness,  we  will  expand  it  somewhat 
and  define  ownership,  as  well  as  property  (when 
used  in  the  sense  of  ownership)  as : A right, 
not  limited  in  dtiration,  fully  to  dispose  of  a material 
object  and  of  its  tUility,  within  the  limits  assigned 
by  Nattiral  Law,  or  by  Civil  Law,  when  the  latter 
interprets,  and  applies  the  former. 

In  order  to  be  certain  that  we  do  not  use  the 
words  ownership  and  property  in  a sense  which 
would  materially  differ  from  the  accepted  one,  we 
turn  to  the  standard  lexicon.  Webster  defines 
ownership  : “The  state  of  being  an  owner,  the 
right  to  own,  the  exclusive  right  of  possession, 
legal  or  just  claim  or  title — Proprietorship.” 
“ Property  (Law).  The  exclusive  right  of  pos- 
sessing, enjoying  and  disposing  of  a thing — 
ownership.”  Our  transatlantic  cousins  define 
the  same  terms  as  follows : 

Ownership — “The  right  by  which  a thing 
belongs  to  some  person  or  body,  to  the  exclusion 
of  all  others  ” — Proprietorship. 

Property — “The  exclusive  right  of  possessing, 
enjoying  and  disposing  of  a thing.” — (John  Ogilvie 
and  Charles  Amandale.) 


30 


OWNEKSnil’  AND 


To  compare  these  various  definitions  would  be 
a needless  task ; to  us  they  seem  to  explain  and 
supplement  one  another. 

But  as  soon  as  we  have,  according  to  the  im- 
perial advice,  made  to  ourselves  a definition  or 
description  of  the  thing  presented  to  us,  it  becomes 
our  duty  to  meet  the  following  questions: 

If  there  be  such  a right  as  ownership,  is  it  based 
on  Natural  Law,  or  Civil  Law,  or  on  both? 

Does  it  apply  to  landed  estates  as  well  as  to 
other  material  objects? 

If  civil  society  has  once  sanctioned  it,  is  the 
effect  of  such  a sanction  permanent  or  limited  to 
the  generation  which  has  granted  the  deed? 

Is  the  right  of  ownership  absolute  as  well  as 
irrevocable?  If  not  absolute,  should  it  not  be 
called  usufruct  rather  than  ownership? 

If  in  the  exercise  of  that  right  enormous  abuses 
spring  up,  is  there  any  remedy  applicable,  any 
power  qualified  to  apply  the  remedy  ? 

We  shall  first  answer  these  questions,  and  then 
dispose  of  the  objections  which  may  not  have 
received  sufficient  consideration  when  discussing 
the  main  points. 


NATURAL  RIGHT. 


31 


CHAPTER  III. 

NATURAL  LAW JUS  GENTIUM POSITIVE  LAW. 

In  his  Commentaries  of  the  Laws  of  England, 
Book  2d,  chap,  ist,  n.  8,  Sir  William  Blackstone 
makes  the  following  statement : 

“ There  is  indeed  some  difference  among  the 
writers  on  natural  law,  concerning  the  reason 
why  occupancy  should  convey  this  right  (the 
original  right  to  the  permanent  property  in  the 
substance  of  the  earth  itself,)  and  invest  one  with 
absolute  property : Grotius  and  Puffendorf  in- 
sisting that  this  right  of  occupancy  is  founded  on 
a tacit  and  implied  assent  of  all  mankind,  that  the 
occupant  should  become  the  owner,  and  Barbey- 
rac,  Titius,  Mr.  Locke,  and  others,  holding  that 
there  is  no  such  implied  assent,  neither  is  it 
necessary  that  there  should  be  ; for  that  the  very 
act  of  occupancy  alone,  being  a degree  of  bodily 
labor,  is  from  a principle  of  natural  justice,  with- 
out any  consent  or  compact,  sufficient  of  itself  to 
gain  a title.  A dispute  that  savors  too  much  of 
nice  and  scholastic  refinement.” 

Whereupon  the  commentators  observe : 

“ But  it  is  of  great  importance  that  moral  obli- 


32 


OWNERSHIP  AND 


gations  and  the  rudiment  of  laws  should  be  re- 
ferred to  true  and  intelligible  principles.” 

We  fully  admit  the  correctness  of  this  remark; 
but  in  order  to  reach  these  true  and  intelligible 
principles,  it  is  indispensable  to  clear  away  an 
ambiguity  which  has  befogged  the  whole  question. 

Authors  have  used  the  words  Nahiral  Law  and 
Positive  Law  with  perplexing  vagueness.  All 
agree  that  those  necessary,  inflexible  maxims  of 
conduct,  which  flash  upon  the  mind  with  the  evi- 
dence of  an  axiom,  belong  to  Natural  Law  ; while 
the  rules  which  derive  their  binding  force  from 
human  enactments  belong  to  Positive  Law.  But 
there  is  a middle  and  debatable  ground,  where 
both  blend  harmoniously,  and  where  it  is  some- 
times difficult  to  determine  where  the  binding 
force  of  the  law  comes  from.  For  instance.  Nat- 
ural Law  forbids  drivers  to  interlock  wheels,  but 
whether  they  must  pass  each  other  on  the  right 
or  on  the  left  depends  entirely  on  local  statutes ; 
for  there  is  no  moral,  intrinsic  reason  why  one 
side  should  be  preferred  to  a!nother.  Here  both 
rules  are  contrasted.  Another  Jehu  drives  at  a 
furious  rate,  to  the  manifest  danger  of  the  little 
urchins  who  play  in  the  middle  of  the  street.. 


NATURAL  RIGHT. 


33 


This  is  against  natural  law.  State  or  municipal 
authority  interferes,  and  determines  that  six  miles 
is  the  highest  rate  that  can  be  tolerated.  This  is 
Positive  Law;  because  no  a pi'iori  maxim  fixes  the 
rate  of  speed.  Yet  it  is  positive  law  meeting  and 
interpreting  natural  law. 

Again,  human  reason  deduces  from  the  first 
axiom  conclusions,  which  are  more  or  less  obvious, 
more  or  less  imperative,  more  or  less  conditional. 
Human  liberty  then  steps  in,  and  determines  the 
conditions.  Here  is  a variable  factor  which  is 
introduced,  and  which  apparently  takes  away  the 
absolute  character  of  the  Law,  Must  that  com- 
pound product  of  natural  law  and  free  will  be 
referred  to  the  former?  Not  without  some  qual- 
ification. Mediaeval  writers,  as  a rule,  called 
Natural  Law,  only  those  self-evident,  universal 
maxims  which  have  the  validity  of  axioms,  and 
the  rules  that  are  immediately  and  evidently  de- 
duced from  them.  Other  deductions,  when  uni- 
versally accepted,  they  referred  to  what  they 
called  jus  gentium,  or  Right  of  Nations,  Less 
obvious  dictates  of  reason  they  considered  as 
merged  in  the  considerations  which  guide  the 
Legislative  Power,  and  consequently  as  comprised 


34 


OWNERSHIP  AND 


in  the  domain  of  mere  positive  law.  Let  us  hear 
on  this  subject  the  prince  of  Christian  philoso- 
phers : 

“ Right,  or  a righteous  deed,  is  an  action  by 
which  a person  gives  another  his  due  according 
to  some  sort  of  equality.  But  that  equality  may 
be  of  two  kinds : namely,  that  based  on  the  very 
nature  of  things  (absolute),  as  when  one  gives  as 
much  as  he  is  to  receive,  and  such  is  natural 
justice ; or  that  based  on  agreement  or  mutual 
consent  (relative  or  proportional  equality),  when 
one  party  is  satisfied  with  a given  compensation. 
The  latter  equality  may  be  verified  in  two  ways : 
first,  by  a private  agreement,  as  when  the  mutual 
consent  is  embodied  in  a contract  between  private 
individuals  ; secondly,  by  a public  compact,  when 
the  whole  people  agree  that  what  is  due  and  what 
is  given  shall  be  held  as  proportional  and  com- 
mensurate, or  when  the  Prince  who  rules  the 
people  and  acts  as  its  representative,  shall  have 
so  ordained — and  this  is  positive  Law.  . . . 

“ Should  an  act  be  at  variance  with  natural  law, 
no  human  will  could  make  it  just.”  (2^  2"*^  q.  57, 
art.  2.) 

“ In  the  article  preceding,  we  said  that  natural 
right  is  founded  on  this,  that  two  things  are  equal 
or  proportional  from  their  very  nature.  But  this 
again  may  be  based  on  two  different  considera- 
tions. First,  the  intrinsic  fitness  of  the  two  terms 
of  a relation,  when  the  nature  of  those  two  terms 


NATURAL  RU:UT. 


35 


is  considered  in  itself : thus  from  the  relation  of 
parent  and  child  it  follows,  that  the  child  must 
receive  nourishment  from  its  parent.  Secondly, 
two  things  may  have  a natural  fitness  or  propor- 
tion, not  when  considered  in  their  own  being,  or 
absolutely,  but  when  what  flows  from  their  nature 
is  taken  into  account — for  instance,  the  ownership 
of  estates.  For  if  a field  be  considered  abso- 
lutely, it  has  nothing  in  it  that  may  make  it  the 
property  of  this  man  rather  than  the  property  of 
another,  but  if  we  take  into  account  cultivation 
and  peaceful  holding,  then  tliere  is  a just  ground 
why  it  should  belong  to  its  owner  rather  than  to 
any  other  man.  With  regard  to  the  mere  power 
of  taking  possession  of  an  object  (occupancy),  it 
belongs  not  only  to  man,  but  also  to  other  living 
beings;  and  for  this  reason  it  is  called  a natural 
right  according  to  the  first  acceptation.  . . . 

Jiis  gentium,  the  ■ right  of  nations,  extends  to 
men  alone : For,  as  Caius,  the  jurisconsult,  has 
it;  ''What  natural  reason  has  established  among 
all  men,  that  prevails  among  all  nations,  and  is 
called  the  jus  gentium." 

“As  reason  itself  dictates  that  which  belongs 
to  the  right  of  nations,  and  is  the  nearest  approach 
to  perfect  equity ; rules  based  on  that  right  do  not 
need  a special  institution,  for  they  rest  on  reason 
itself.”— ribid.  a,  3.) 

'rhus,  according  to  St.  Thomas,  we  have : 


36 


OWNERSIITP  AND 


1st,  The  Natural  Law,  which  is  based  on  the 
eternal  fitness  of  things  ; 

2d,  The  Law  of  Nations,  which  is  based  on  the 
conclusions  of  human  reasoning  ; and 

3rd,  Positive  Law,  which  depends  on  legal 
enactments. 

But  most  writers  ignore  the  middle  ground, 
and  refer  every  rule  of  conduct  either  to  Natural 
or  to  Positive  Law ; whence  arises  a certain  con- 
fusion which  is  somewhat  distressing  to  the 
student.  This  will  be  best  illustrated  by  com- 
paring the  statements  of  three  men  of  great 
learning  and  superior  mental  power,  but  different 
in  nationality,  and  in  intellectual  complexion. 

Leonard  Lessius,  in  his  celebrated  treatise 
^‘■De  fustitia  et  fure"  (Lib.  2,  Cap.  5,  Dub.  3*), 
declares  that  the  division  of  property,  or  individual 
ownership,  does  not  come  from  the  law  of  nature, 
but  from  the  jus  gentium,  that  is,  according  to  the 
definition  of  Caius  endorsed  by  St.  Thomas,  from 
a dictate  of  reason  accepted  by  all  civilized  races. 
The  objection  drawn  from  the  legal  axiom: 
'"That  which  belongs  to  nobody  becomes,  by  the  law 
of  nature,  the  property  of  the  first  occupierj  he 
answers  as  follows: 


-NATURAL  RIGHT. 


37 


1st,  y us  gentium  is  sometimes  called  Natural 
Law. 

2nd,  The  division  of  estates  is  one  thing,  the 
right  of  appropriation  is  another : The  right  of 
appropriating  material  objects  comes  directly  from 
nature ; the  division  of  property,  from  the  right 
of  nations. 

Positive  Law  Lessius  does  not  mention  in  con- 
nection with  his  thesis.  He  then  proposes  to 
himself  the  following  syllogism  : 

What  reason  dictates  belongs  to  Natural  Law. 
But  the  division  of  property  is  dictated  by  reason. 
Therefore  it  belongs  to  Natural  Law. 

In  answer  to  the  first  premise,  he  replies  that 
a rule  of  conduct  ordained  by  reason,  belongs  to 
Natural. Law  as  far  as  the  direction  of  reason 
extends,  or  as  far  as  the  rule  is  imperative ; 
moreover  he  admits  that  the  division  of  property 
is  based  on  Natural  Law,  but  he  denies  that  nature 
issues  an  absolute  command,  admitting  of  no  ex- 
ception whatever.  The  rule  of  nature  is  directive, 
not  absolutely  imperative. 

When  we  bear  in  mind  the  distinctions  of  St. 
Thomas  whose  works  were  the  constant  study  of 
Lessius,  his  answer  is  perfectly  clear. 


38 


OWNEKSIIII’  AND 


Cardinal  de  Lugo,  also  in  his  treatise  De  justitia 
etjurc  (Disputatio  VI,  sectio  i“),  gives  very  strong 
reasons  to  prove  that  Natural  Law  requires  the 
division  of  estates.  Raising  the  objection  that 
the  law  is  not  strictly  universal,  because  all  men 
are  not  obliged  to  hold  property,  and  all  societies 
are  not  obliged  to  divide,  he  replies,  that 
exceptional  conditions  do  not  invalidate  a moral 
law.  To  the  objection  that  a moral  law  which 
admits  of  exceptions  does  not  properly  be- 
long to  Natural  right,  which  is  essentially 
universal,  but  to  the  jiis  genthun,  the  answer 
is  that  Justinian  himself  has  used  the  term 
jus  natures  as  involving  the  jus  gentium.  This 
assertion  of  de  Lugo  is  borne  out  by  the  following 
text  of  the  Institutes  of  Justinian  Book  II,  T.  i,  S. 
ii : “Objects  become  individual  property  in 
several  ways.  Of  some  we  acquire  domain  by 
the  law  of  nature,  which  is  also  called  jus  gentium 
— the  law  of  nations”  (Edit.  Christoph.  Henry, 
Freiesleben  page  i8).  Moreover,  theologians 
had  come  to  call  Natural  Law,  the  rules  of  conduct 
which  reason  dictates  and  which  do  not  need  for 
their  validity  a positive  enactment,  added  to  nature 
by  the  exercise  of  reason  (Ibid.  Sect.  i“  nr.  5). 


NATURAL  RIGHT. 


39 


In  this  passage  we  come  unawares  upon  one  term 
absorbing  the  meaning  of  the  other. 

Puffendorf  (De  Jure  Naturae  et  Gentium,  lib. 
IV  C.  IV,)  distinguishes  two  sorts  of  community 

of  goods,  a nep'ative  and  a positive  one.  The 

^ ...  . 

former  consists  in  this : that  things  whi^fcaTe  not 

i^<;wi.a-ppropriated  and  therefore  belong  as  yet  to  no- 
body, so  that  the  exclusive  character  of  ownership 
has  not  yet  made  its  appearance.  The  positive  com- 
munity consists  in  collective  ownership — a distinc- 
tion already  found  in  the  schoolmen,  and  in  deLugo 
in  particular.  He  states  that  the  former  was  the 
primitive  condition  of  mankind,  but  that  reason 
taught  men  that  this  could  not  last,  and  so  by  a 
kind  of  tacit  agreement,  they  began  to  occupy 
and  divide.  After  promising  not  to  chide  Hugo 
Grotius  for  breach  of  orthodoxy,  because  he  had 
been  soundly  berated  by  others,  Puffendorf  takes 
him  to  task  for  having  said  that  if  men  had  been 
well  behaved,  they  might  have  remained  as  they 
were,  helping  themselves  whenever  and  wherever 
they  thought  fit.  He  tells  him  in  substance : 

Mark  me,  Hugo ! You  have  jumped  from  the 
negative  to  the  positive  community  without  a 
word  of  warning ! 


40 


OWNERSHIP  AND 


If  by  the  words  tacit  agreeme^tt,  Puffendorf  means 
what  St.  Thomas  expresses  by  the  word  condichmi 
i.  e.  a common  consent,  Trought  about  by  the 
evidence  of  reason,  he  does  not  deserve  all  the 
scoldings  that  he  has  received ; (what  he  gave 
Grotius  he  received  himself  from  others,  with 
interest).  But  if  he  means  a compact  properly 
so  called,  even  implied,  then,  in  the  first  place, 

there  is  no  trace  of  such  a compact ; and  secondly, 
such  a compact  would  be  utterly  invalid.  First, 

because  the  only  foundation  in  right  would  have 
been  a negative  ownership,  i.  e.  men  would  have 
given  away  what  they  did  not  possess ; secondly, 
because  their  descendants  could  not  be  bound  by 
the  acts  of  men  with  whom  they  have  no  political 
connection  in  fact,  of  men  who  did  not  act  as  a 
corporate  body,  but  as  mere  individuals.  We  are 
convinced  that  Puffendorf  did  not  mean  a compact, 
but  a mere  assent,  won  by  evidence  alone ; for 
he  says  in  the  14th  paragraph:  “From  this  it 
appears,  in  what  sense  we  must  understand  what 
some  authors  aver:  that  the  right  of  property 
belongs  to  natural  law  properly  so  called.  We 
must  observe  that  the  word  natural  right  has  two 
meaningj,”  etc.,  and  he  substantially  repeats  the 


NAl'URAL  RIGHT. 


41 


explanation  of  de  Lugo.  Both  the  fourth  and 
fifth  chapters  are  well  worth  reading. 

Since  the  jus  gentuim  has  been  absorbed  by 
natural  law,  there  is  no  reason  why  we  should 
cling  to  that  word.  Yet  it  is  to  be  regretted  that 
both  terms  have  not  been  preserved,  or  that 
writers  have  not  adopted  the  distinction  of  Wolf 
(Inst.  Jur.  Nat.  et  Gen.  § 1088),  who  acknowl- 
edges two  Rights  of  Nations,  the  one  necessary, 
the  other  subject  to  free  will.  The  former  cor- 
responding to  the  assent,  condictum,  of  St.  Thomas 
when  it  is  imposed  by  a mandate  of  reason, 
dictamine  rationis,  so  that  men  are  not  at  liberty 
to  refuse  it ; the  latter  springing  from  that  con- 
dictum,  when  it  is  entirely  left  to  human  liberty. 
In  modern  parlance.  Jus  gentium  means  Interna- 
tional Law. 

These  explanations  are  long  and  perhaps  wea- 
risome, but  we  could  not  have  suppressed  them 
without  inviting  a misunderstanding.  We  may 
now  state  the  orthodox  principles,  without  fear 
of  equivocation.  The  right  of  appropriation,  and 
consequently  of  ownership,  belongs  to  Natural 
Law  in  its  strictest  sense.  Occupancy  is  the  fact 
by  which  the  right  is  applied  to  this  or  to  that 


42 


OWMiRSim*  AND 


material  object.  Positive  I.aw  gives  occupancy 
a sanction,  which  society  is  not  at  liberty  to  with- 


hold. 


NATURAL  RIGHT. 


43 


CHAPTER  IV. 

THE  RIGHT  OF  OWNERSHIP  DEMONSTRATED  BY 

DEDUCTION. 

We  shall  not  discuss  the  right  of  using  for  a 
time,  or  consuming  material  objects,  (dominium 
transiens)  for  nobody,  in  his  senses,  ever  ques- 
tioned it.  W e have  to  deal  only  with  permanent 
dominion. 

Man  has  the  duty,  and,  therefore,  the  right  to 
accornpiish  those  acts  which  are  necessary  to 
attain  the  end  of  his  being,  and  work  out  his 
destiny;  bni  in  order  to  do  so,  man  is  bound  to 
app-ajj.'i-iaie  many  exterior  objects;  hence  the 
right  of  aijisropriating  .such  objects  is  unquestion- 
able— it  springs  from  an  essential  duty.  That 
appropriation  must  be  permanent ; for  man  cannot 
incessantly  continue  the  struggle  for  existence, 
he  has  oi  her  duties  to  perform  which  prevent  him 
from  being  constantly  engaged  in  the  work  of 
appropriation.  Should  the  effect  of  such  appro- 
priation be  transient,  these  duties  would  become 


44 


OWNEKSIIIP  AND 


impossible.  Besides,  nature  has  compelled  him 
to  cease  his  labor  at  times;  now  if  during  those 
intervals  the  effect  of  appropriation  should  cease, 
he  might  lose  the  means  of  renewing  his  labors, 
and  this  would  defeat  the  purpose  of  appropria- 
tion. 

Secondly,  Nature  directs  man  to  give  his 
faculties  the  fullest  development  which  is  practi- 
cally attainable;  but  without  permanent  domain 
this  development  would  be  unattainable.  For, 
should  he  devote  his  attention  to  cultivate  sciences, 
he  would  have  either  to  starve  or  to  rely  on  the 
charity  of  other  people.  The  former  is  evidently 
against  his  duty  to  himself ; the  latter  would 
compel  him  to  rely  on  the  kindness  of  others,  and 
the  supply  would  be  both  insecure  and  enslaving. 
Besides,  the  contributor  must  have  hoarded  up 
something  over  and  above  his  actual  wants,  for 
the  use  either  of  himself  or  of  his  friends.  Over 
that  something,  he  must  have  a perfect  ownership, 
since  he  can  give  it  away ; but  this  very  hypo- 
thesis proves  permanency,  for  those  savings  have 
remained  his  own  after  he  has  ceased  to  need 
them ; it  proves  exclusiveness,  because  he  could 
not  hoard  up  first,  and  give  up  afterwards,  what 


NATURAL  RIGHT. 


45 


any  one  might  have  appropriated  as  long  as  he 
did  not  actually  use  it.  We  have  then  the  three 
characteristics  of  ownership,  permanency,  exclu- 
siveness, free  disposal. 

Thirdly,  Nature  constantly  teaches  man  the 
necessity  of  providing  for  the  future.  Man  is 
subject  to  sickness,  and  must  reach  old  age,  unless 
overtaken  by  death;  when  old  or  sick,  he  cannot 
procure  what  is  necessary  to  satisfy  his  wants. 
He  must  therefore  lay  by  enough  for  a rainy  day. 
Nature  teaches  the  lesson  most  strikingly  in  the 
little  ant  and  bee  that  instinctively  amass  and  lay 
by  their  tiny  store  against  the  on-coming  winter. 

Fourthly,  Man,  in  the  sententious  phrase  of 
Aristotle,  is  animal  domesticum,  or  destined  to 
live  in  domestic  society ; to  raise  children  who 
shall  owe  him  their  existence  and  in  whom  he  will 
perpetuate  himself.  The  permanency  and  pro- 
gress of  the  species  depend  on  his  faithful 
discharge  of  those  duties.  But  in  order  to  fulfill 
them,  he  must  have  permanent  domain,  for 
otherwise  he  might  die  leaving  his  children 
unprovided.  If  parents  left  nothing  to  their 
offspring,  then  every  generation  would  have  to 
begin  the  work  over  again,  and  each  man  would 


4G 


OWNEKSIIH’  AND 


be  a Danaicl,  forever  pouring  water  into  a f-ottoin- 
less  barrel. 

Fifthly,  Although  man  is  animat  domesticum 
magis  qiiam  politicum  according  to  the  old  axiom 
of  Aristotle,  taken  up  by  the  schoolmen,  yet,  he 
is  also,  by  his  very  nature,  a social  lieing.  Now 
in  a society,  men  must  have  various  avocations; 
they  must  be  able  to  exchange  and  ha  rum,  give 
and  consume;  this  needs  no  proof. 

Now,  all  those  conditions  suppose  the  free  dis- 
posal of  that  which  is  appropriated ; this  free 
disposal,  itself  implies  exclusiveness,  and  exclu- 
siveness, in  turn,  supposes  permanency,  and  so 
we  come  back  again  to  the  three  charactej'i sties  of 
ownership — disposal,  exclusiveness,  permanency. 

“ Halt ! ” would  cry  out  a disciple  of  Cabet  or 
Fourier.  “We  grant  you  that  each  man  is  in  duty 
bound  to.  provide  for  himself  and  family,  and  that 
in  order  to  do  so,  he  must  own  something  perma- 
nently, but  could  he  not  fulfill  his  duty  just  as 
well  if  he  held  that  property  jointly  with  others  ?” 
Not  as  well,  if  we  take  warning  from  the  fate  of 
the  Phalansterians ; yet,  under  exc<  pdon;d  cir- 
cumstances, it  might  be  tried.  But  suppose  the 
experiment  successful,  what  would  have  been  ac- 


NATURAL  RIGHT. 


47 


complished  Y Each  one  would  have  shifted  a part 
of  his  burden  on  others,  and  taken  a part  of  their 
burden  in  exchange.  The  duties  and  rights  of 
the  community  would  be  the  aggregate  duties 
and  rights  of  the  members.  Let  us  make  this 
plainer  by  a simple  illustration  : 

Sam  Slick  has  put  his  wife  and  children  on  his 
wagon,  or  rather  on  the  furniture  and  notions 
which  are  piled  up  on  the  creaking  vehicle.  Sam 
is  going  West.  After  an  adventurous  journey, 
he  finds  in  the  prairie  a spot  to  his  liking,  and 
squats  there.  Fully  aware  that  he  must  provide 
for  the  future,  he  addresses  himself  resolutely  to 
the  hard  task  of  a pioneer.  Thomas  Cantwell, 
who  has  followed  the  track  of  Sam,  soon  turns 
up ; he  settles  by  the  side  of  the  first  comer,  and 
buoyed  up  by  the  same  hopes,  goes  to  work  with 
the  same  zest.  Before  long,  each  one  finds  that 
his  neighbor  has  many  things  which  might  be  of 
great  use  to  both.  Sam,  for  instance,  has  a won- 
derful plow  which  goes  deep  into  the  ground,  and 
makes  short  work  of  roots ; Tom  has  a no  less 
wonderful  mower  that  cuts  hay  by  the  ton ; both 
meet  on  the  border  of  their  respective  kingdoms  : 
"‘Sam,  old  fellow!”  says  Tom,  “why  could  we 


48 


OWNERSHIP  AND 


not  combine  and  make  a good  farm  out  of  two 
small  ones  ? ” “ Done  ! ” replies  his  friend  ; “ ’tis 

a bargain,”  Without  more  ado,  they  put  their 
goods  and  chattels  in  common,  build  a house 
across  the  line  which  before  divided  the  two  set- 
tlements, and  begin  a life  of  compound  bliss.  On 
the  worthy  pair  now  devolves  the  care  of  two 
families.  From  what  source  spring  the  duties 
and  consequently  the  rights  of  the  firm  Slick  and 
Cantwell  ? From  the  duties  and  rights  of  both 
partners.  Take  away  that  foundation,  and  noth- 
ing can  remain  standing.  Thus  the  rights  of  a 
community  presuppose  the  rights  of  its  members. 
Whether  our  friends  have  acted  wisely,  is  quite 
another  question.  Often  do  we  find  a house 
which  is  too  large  for  one  family ; seldom  do  we 
find  one  large  enough  for  two. 

Modern  dreamers  believe  that  collective  own- 
ership is  the  great  nostrum  which  will  cure  all 
social  distempers.  Repeated  failures  do  not  dispel 
their  illusions,  but  merely  excite  their  wonder. 
St,  Thomas  gives  three  very  good  reasons  why 
collective  ownership  should  fail,  and  experience 
has  made  good  his  assertions. 

“With  regard  to  exterior  objects,  man  has  two 


NATURAl.  RIGHT. 


49 


powers — to  acquire  and  dispose  ” (i.  e.  according 
to  the  dictates  of  reason).  “ With  regard  to  both 
acquisition  and  dispensation,  the  holding  of  prop- 
erty is  not  only  lawful,  but  also  necessary  for 
human  life ; and  this  for  three  reasons : First, 
Because  man  displays  more  thrift  in  acquiring 
that  which  must  remain  his  own,  than  goods  which 
are  destined  to  many  or  all ; for  (as  it  happens 
where  servants  are  in  considerable  number)  each 
one  shirking  toil,  leaves  to  his  neighbor  the  care 
of  supplying  the  wants  of  the  community.  Sec- 
ondly, Because  human  interest  will  be  better 
promoted  if  each  man  has  the  care  of  supplying 
a particular  kind  of  community ; should  every  one 
busy  himself  about  every  thing,,  a great  confusion 
would  be  the  result.  Thirdly,  Because  by  this 
division  the  peace  of  society  is  better  secured, 
while  each  one  is  satisfied  with  his  own  portion.” 
— (2®’  2®®’  9,  66,  Art.  2.) 

Whereupon,  Puffendorf  very  justly  observes 
that  the  ineum  and  tmtm  has  been  doubtless  the 
occasion  of  many  quarrels,  and  many  wars ; but 
that  if  we  take  it  away,  we  come  at  once  to  the 
condition  imagined  by  Hobbes,  the  war  of  all 
against  all — in  fact,  a general  grabbing  match  in 
which  every  one  tries  to  hustle  every  one  else  out 
of  the  way. 

But,  says  Mr.  George,  every  one  is  not  selfish ! 


50 


OWNERSHIP  AND 


Happily  not,  but  there  are  and  shall  ever  be  a 
great  many  selfish  men  : human  nature  is  natu- 
rally selfish,  and  it  is  only  supernatural  virtue 
which  raises  men  habitually  above  self-interest, 
or,  as  our  friend  Pufifendorf  has  it:  “ It  is  an  easy 
task  to  imagine  men  as  they  might  be,  but  an 
impossible  one  to  find  them  in  actual  life  such  as 
they  were  in  our  fancy.” 

Dreamers  may  object  that  some  societies,  based 
on  collective  ownership,  have  existed  and  are  yet 
in  existence.  We  reply  political  societies  of 
this  kind,  either  have  never  existed,  or  have  been 
invariably  swept  away  by  the  advances  of  civili- 
zation. The  nearest  approach  to  a commonwealth 
of  the  kind  was  made  by  the  reductions  of  Para- 
guay, but  unfortunately  the  greed  of  merchants 
and  the  anti-religious  frenzy  of  such  men  as 
Carvalho,  put  an  end  to  the  experiment  before  it 
was  completed.  Should  some  friend  of  the  human 
race  desire  to  make  another  attempt,  we  wish  him 
Godspeed ; but  let  him  make  the  experiment 
where  it  will  not  interfere  with  vested  rights  and 
existing  social  institutions.  We  object  to  have 
things  pulled  down,  whilst  we  hold  nothing  but  a 
mortgage  on  Dreamland  or  Utopia. 


NATURAL  RIGHT. 


51 


We  can  show  from  the  testimony  of  two  philan- 
thropists, Messrs.  Henry  George,  and  R.  J. 
Wright,  that  the  existence  of  small  ascetic  soci- 
eties, is  not  to  the  point.  Both  admit  that  such 
a community  requires  of  its  members  complete 
self-denial  and  a high  moral  perfection.  The 
masses  will  possibly  reach  that  level  when  the 
millennium  begins,  but  in  the  meantime  let  us  be 
satisfied  to  live  in  this  wicked  world,  as  best  we 
can.* 

The  first  demonstration  is  drawn  from  the  end 
and  duties  of  man.  The  second  may  be  drawn 
from  his  nature  considered  in  itself.  Among  all 
the  beings  that  exist  in  this  world,  man  is  the 


* “ 1 am  not  willing  to  say  that  in  the  progress  of  humanity,  a state 
of  society  may  not  he  possible  which  shall  realize  the  formula  of  Louis 
Blanc  ; ^from  each  according  to  his  abilities^  to  each  according  to  his  wants ^ 
for  there  exists  to-day  in  the  religious  orders  of  the  Catholic  Church, 
associations  which  maintain  the  communism  of  early  Christianity. 
But  it  seems  to  me  that  the  only  power  by  which  such  a state  of  society 
can  be  attained  and  preserved  is  that  which  the  framers  of  the  schemes 
I speak  of  ignore,  even  when  they  do  not  directly  antagonize — a deep, 
definite,  intense,  religious  faith,  so  burning  as  to  utterly  melt  away  the 
thought  of  self.” — {Froble??is^  C.  x.,  p.  95.) 

“ Socialism  in  anything  approaching  such  a form  (The  Reductions  of 
Paraguay)  modern  society  cannot  successfully  attempt.  The  only  force 
that  has  ever  proved  competent  for  it — a strong  definite  religious  faith 
— is  wanting  and  is  daily  growing  less.  We  have  passed  out  of  the 
socialism  of  the  tribal  state,  and  cannot  re-enter  it  again,  except  by  a 


52 


OWNERSHIP  AND 


only  one  that  has  personality,  consciousness,  and 
freedom.  Ens  in  se  et  sihi.  He  does  not  exist 
for  another  created  being,  or  merely  to  be  useful 
to  others.  Whilst  his  almighty  Creator  says : 
Ego  sum  qui  sum,  (I  am  who  am)  man  says : Ego 
sum,  (I  am.)  It  is  his  privilege  and  his  duty  to 
make  inferior  creatures  subservient  to  himself. 
They  have  not  an  independent  destiny;  their 
utility  shows  their  destination  ; they  are  made  for 
man.  He  must  then  impress  on  them  his  person- 
ality, as  the  image  of  his  Creator  is  impressed 
upon  him.  This  is  true  of  each  individual  man, 
for  each  one  is  an  independent  substance,  and  has 
his  own  destiny  to  work  out ; the  kind  or  species 


retrogression  that  would  involve  anarchy  and  perhaps  barbarism/’ — 
{^Progress  and  Poverty,,  B.  vi,  C.  I.) 

“ Communism  is  not  merely,  nor  chiefly  a tenure  of  property,  but 
rather  a form  of  government,  for  a corporation  or  even  a precinct ; in 
which  the  highest  attainable  perfection  of  human  nature,  is  supposed 
to  be  the  chief  object  of  the  individual,  and  is  established  as  the  chief 
object  of  the  society.” — (R.  J.  Wright,  Principia  of  Social  Science,,  p.  434.) 

“It  must ‘be  a highly  obeyed  system  of  government,  both  in  one’s 
individual  soul,  and  in  the  association.” — (Ibid.  p.  435.) 

‘ The  successful  communities  in  every  age  of  the  world  have  in- 
cluded nearly  all  the  following  principles:  (i)  that  community-life  is 
to  be  sought  as  a means  of  perfection  ; (2)  that  the  government  of  them 
is  to  be  in  the  hands  of  good  men  ; (3)  that  the  governors  are  supposed 
to  be  saints,  or  to  be  leading  lives  of  some  sort  of  inspiration  or 
peculiar  consecration.” — (Ibid.  p.  437.) 


NATURAL  RIGHT. 


53 


IS  fully  represented  in  him.  Therefore  whilst,  as 
St.  Thomas  has  it,  other  earthly  beings  act 
specifically,  man  acts  individually — (S.  Thomas 
Contra  Gentes,  L.  Ill,  cap.  113).  If  so,  then  he 
must  stamp  his  individuality  on  the  beings  which 
have  been  created  for  him,  or  project  himself,  as 
it  were,  on  the  exterior  world.  If  this  be  accom- 
plished there  is  between  a man  and  that  which 
bears  his  stamp  a.  relation  which  can  exist  be- 
tween no  other  two  beings  of  the  same  order, 
and  every  one  who  interferes  with  it,  violates  the 
right  which  is  inseparable  from  human  personality. 
This  thought  is  grandly  expressed  by  St  Thomas 
(2^  2“®  q.  66,  art.  i): 

•‘An  exterior  object  may  be  considered  under 
a twofold  aspect:  ist,  in  its  nature,  which  is  not 
subject  to  the  human,  but  only  to  the  Divine 
Power,  whose  beck  all  things  obey.  It  may  be 
considered  also  in  its  utility,  and  thus  man  has, 
by  his  very  nature,  a dominion  over  exterior  ob- 
jects ; for  by  his  reason  and  will  he  can  make 
them  useful  to  himself,  as  being  created  for  his 
sake ; for  what  is  less  perfect  is  made  for  that 
which  is  more  perfect,  and  from  this  law  Aristotle 
concludes,  in  the  first  book  of  Politics,  chaper  5th, 
that  the  possession  of  exterior  things  is  natural 
to  man.  But  this  natural  dominion  of  man  over 


54 


OWNERSHIP  AND 


the  Other  creatures  belongs  to  liini  on  account  of 
his  reason,  by  which^he  is  God’s  image;  and  is 
manifested  in  the  very  act  of  creation  according 
to  the  words  of  Genesis  : ‘ Let  us  make  man  to 
our  image  and  likeness  ; and  let  him  have  domin- 
ion over  the  fishes  of  the  sea,  and  fowls  of  the  air, 
and  the  beasts,  and  the  whole  earth,  and  every 
creeping  thing  that  moveth  upon  the  earth.” 

From  this  truth  we  reason  as  follows  : 

Wherever  the  perfect  rational  nature  and  the 
perfect  impress  of  the  divine  image  are  found 
there  also  must  be  dominion  over  things  earthly ; 
but  that  nature  and  the  divine  likeness  which  ac- 
companies it,  exist  in  each  individual  man,  hence 
in  each  and  every  man,  this  dominion  exists,  at 
least  potentially^  if  not  actually. 


NATURAL  RIGHT. 


55 


CHAPTER  V. 

THE  SAME  DEMONSTRATED  BY  INDUCTION. 

When  evolving  the  right  of  appropriation  from 
the  end  and  duties  of  man,  or  from  the  special 
privileges  of  a conscious  being,  which  can  project 
its  individuality  on  exterior  objects,  we  have 
applied  to  the  doctrine  of  property  the  deductive 
process ; let  us  now  test  it  by  the  inductive 
method,  and  see  whether  the  facts  give  us  some 
tokens  of  a general  law. 

It  seems,  at  first,  somewhat  strange  that  Jus- 
tinian, should  have  said  that  the  law  of  nature 
obtains  even  among  animals;  whilst  the  jus 
gentium,  which  is  based  on  reason,  applies  to  man 
alone;  but  when  we  compare  the  first  and  second 
titles  of  the  Institutes,  with  the  IXth  book  of 
the  Pandects,  title  ist,  nn-i-2-3,  we  clearly  discern 
the  true  meaning.  The  Emperor  does  not  con- 
sider animals  as  responsible  agents,  but  he  holds 
that  when  nature  wishes  to  secure  an  end  of 
universal  interest,  it  stamps  its  law  on  the  heart 


OWNKKSIIIP  AND 


of  man,  and  gives  animals  an  inclination,  which 
makes  up,  to  some  extent,  for  the  absence  of 
reason.  This  animal  instinct  becomes  an  index, 
which  may  lead  us  to  discover  a general  law. 

“The  rational  proof  which  we  have  adduced  to 
show  that  nature  has  established  the  right  of 
property,  is  confirmed  by  a fact  of  instinct,  which 
is  observable  in  the  man  as  in  the  brute ; thus,  in 
both  the  one  and  the  other,  a feeling  of  natural 
indignation  springs  up,  when  one  attempts  to 
snatch  from  us  what  we  hold  in  possession.  Take 
two  little  children  who  run  a race  for  an  apple. 
The  winner  of  the  apple  could  well  have  borne 
his  loss,  had  he  been  beaten  in  swiftness  by  his 
rival ; but  with  what  indignation  is  he  not  carried 
away,  if  the  latter  availing  himself  of  superior 
strength,  strives  to  wrest  the  prize  from  his  hands. 
And  how  will  not  the  mastiff  growl,  if  one  dare 
to  deprive  him  ot  his  favorite  bone.  Far  be  it 
from  me  to  attribute  to  a dog  the  idea  of  right, 
he  moves  himself,  or  rather  is  moved  by  natural 
instinct.  But  this  instinct  shows  us  that  creative 
Providence  saw  that  peaceful  possession  of  the 
good  occupied  was  necessary  for  the  well  being 
of  the  animal,  and  hence  it  impressed  upon  the 
very  brute  a certain  natural  respect,  which  not 
unfrequently  restrains  the  strongest  in  presence 
of  the  weakest.” — (Taparelli  d’Azeglio,  Natural 
Right,  B.  II,  C.  iv,  n 403.) 

We  may  add  that  the  ant  will  fight  for  its  hill, 


NATURAL  RIGHT. 


57 


the  bee  for  its  hive,  the  bird  for  its  nest,  the  dog 
for  its  kennel ; to  every  animal,  its  chosen  abode 
is  a castle  which  stronger  animals  will  fear  to 
invade.  In  man,  this  instinctive  clinging  to  own- 
ership becomes  an  inclination,  sanctioned  by 
reason,  and  growing  with  human  personality : 

“ Man,  thriftless  at  first,  cares  but  little  for  the 
ground  w'hich  yields  nothing  but  wild  berries.  . . 
. . . But  he  soon  divides  land,  improves*  it,  and 
strongly  clings  to  his  share.  When  people  gather 
their  strength  to  wrest  it  from  him,  he  blends  his 
energy  with  the  corporate  strength  of  his  nation. 
If  the  onslaught  is  committed  within  the  city,  he 
appeals  to  a judge  for  redress.  Thus  as  he  de- 
velops himiself,  he  grows  fonder  and  fonder  of  his 
own  estate ; in  a word,  he  becomes  more  and 
more  a proprietor.” — (A,  Thiers,  de  la  Propriete, 
Vol  I,  p.  27). 

In  scanning  nature,  we  have  not  only  struck  a 
group  of  phenomena,  we  have  met  a general  law. 
But  is  that  law  a social  as  well  as  an  individual 
one  ? Let  us  propose  the  question  to  a standard 
authority,  Mr.  Cliffe  Leslie  : 

“The  term  Natural  has  been  indeed  a source 
of  so  much  confusion  and  error  in  both  the  philos- 
ophy of  Law,  and  Political  Economy,  that  it  might 


* The  word  ‘ improves  ’ in  not  ih.that  sentence,  but  in  the  context. 


58 


OWNERSHIP  AND 


be  well  to  expel  it  altogether  from  the  termi- 
nology of  both  ; (we  have  cleared  away  the  con- 
fusion, with  the  help  of  Emperor  Justinian,)  but 
it  could  not  be  more  legitimately  applied  than  in 
the  proposition  that  there  is  a natural  movement, 
as  society  advances,  from  common  to  separate 
property  in  land  and  chattels.  This  movement 
is  perceptible  even  among  the  Slav,  nations  them- 
selves, and  is  closely  connected  with  the  move- 
ment from  the  status  to  contract,  which  Sir.  H. 
Maine  has  shown  to  be  one  of  the  principal 
phases  of  civilization.”  (Introduction  toLaveleye, 
P-  I3-) 

Let  us  hear  W.  Roscher,  the  founder  and  the 
head  of  the  historical  school  of  political  economy. 

“The  progress  of  civilization  demands  an  ever 
increasing  fixity,  and  a more  pronounced  shaping 
of  landed  property,  in  the  interest  of  all  who  share 
in  this  progress,  and  even  of  those  who  own  no 
landed  property.  Were  there  no  property  in 
land,  every  one  woulcf  find  it  more  difficult  and 
laborious  to  gratify  his  want  of  agricultural  pro- 
ducts, and  the  products  themselves  would  be  of 
an  inferior  kind.” — (Political  Economy,  B.  ist 
Sect.  87,  Translated  by  J.  Lalor,  Henry  Holt  & 
Co.,  N.  Y.) 

We  turn  to  Mr.  de  Laveleye,  the  principal 
authority  quoted  by  Mr.  Henry  George. 

“The  flourishing  appearance  of  Bulgaria  shows 


NATURAI,  RIGHT. 


59 


decisively  that  the  system  (Patriarchal  ownership) 
is  not  antagonistic  to  good  cultivation.  And  yet 
this  organization,  in  spite  of  many  advantages,  is 
falling  to  ruin,  and  disappearing  wherever  it 
comes  into  contact  with  modern  ideas.  The 
reason  is  that  these  institutions  are  suited  to  the 
stationary  condition  of  a primitive  age,  but  cannot 
easily  withstand  the  condition  of  a state  of  society, 
in  which  men  are  striving  to  improve  their  own 
lot  as  well  as  the  political  and  social  organization 
under  which  they  live.” 

Well!  We  do  not  wish  to  be  in  a stationary 
condition,  and  most  Americans  want  to  improve 
their  lot,  as  well  as  the  social  organization  under 
which  they  live.  And  so,  venerable  institution  of 
patriarchal  ownership,  we  bid  thee  a long  but 
kindly  farewell  I 


60 


OWNERSHIP  AND 


CHAPTER  VI. 

ABSTRACT  AND  CONCRETE  RIGHT. 

The  destiny  and  duties  of  man,  his  exalted 
rank,  the  instincts  which  betray  nature’s  handi- 
craft, the  laws  which  rule  social  evolution,  have 
made  good  the  rights  of  ownership ; yet  so  far, 
we  have  but  a bare  moral  power,  something  like 
an  officer’s  commission  before  he  is  appointed  to 
a command ; like  the  eligibility  of  a citizen,  before 
he  has  secured  an  election.  Philosophers  call  it 
an  abstract  right ; to  clothe  it  with  a concrete  ex- 
istence it  needs  something  real  to  take  hold  of. 
It  may  be  held  in  abeyance,  its  exercise  may  be 
checked,  but  it  clings  to  its  owner,  ready  to 
spring  into  life  at  the  bidding  of  human  activity. 

This  distinction  is  as  old  as  Aristotle,  probably 
much  older,  yet  persons  of  superior  ability,  occa- 
sionally lose  sight  of  it,  perchance  because  it  is  so 
old. 

Mr.  Pastiat  says  boldly:  “In  the  full  force  ut 
the  word,  man  is  born  a proprietor,  etc.”  If  the 


NATURAL  RIGHT. 


61 


distinguished  writer  means  that  man  has  the 
abstract  right  to  become  one,  the  proposition  is 
true,  but  he  should  not  have  used  the  expression 
— “In  the  full  force  of  the  word,”  If  he  means 
that  man  when  coming  into  this  world,  actually 
owns  something,  outside  of  himself,  then  he  runs 
counter  to  the  wise  saying  of  Job : “ Naked  came 

I out  of  my  mother’s  womb,  and  naked  shall  I 
return  thither,”  Mr.  de  Laveleye  finds  fault  with 
his  learned  friend,  and  chides  him  thus:  “From 
the  words  of  Mr.  Bastiat,  it  follows  that  unless 
we  condemn  some  persons  to  death,  we  must 
recognize  in  all  the  right  of  property.”  Certainly, 
you  could  not  take  the  right  from  them,  without 
quenching  the  vital  spark,  and  you  would  not  do 
that.  “Man,”  continues  Mr.  Bastiat,  “lives  and 
develops  by  appropriating  certain  objects.  Appro- 
priation is  a natural,  providential  phenomenon, 
essential  to  life ; and  property  is  only  appropria- 
tion, converted  into  right  by  labor.”  Mr.  Bastiat 
is  substantially  correct,  because  he  mentions  the 
fact  which  gives  ^the  abstract  right  a concrete 
existence.  Yet  the  words  converted  into  right  are 
objectionable.  A fact  is  not,  properly  speaking, 
converted  into  a right.  The  answer  of  Mr.  de 


62 


OWNEKSIIir  AND 


Laveleye  is  not  valid.  “If  appropriation  is  essen- 
tial to  life,  all  should  be  able  to  appropriate  a 
portion  of  matter  by  labor.”  Why  not  ? They 
have  certainly  the  right  to  do  so,  provided  they 
do  not  pounce  upon  the  portion  which  another 
has  appropriated.  If  they  cannot  labor,  their 
right  remains  in  abeyance ; but  those  who  can 
labor  must  support  them. 

A similar  ambiguity  makes  the  following  posi- 
tion of  Mr.  George  very  misleading : “(Nature) 
makes  no  discriminations  among  men,  but  is  to 
all  absolutely  impartial.  . . . All  men  to  her,  stand 
upon  an  equal  footing,  and  have  equal  rights.” 
If  this  be  understood  of  abstract  rights,  and  of 
nature  considered  in  the  species,  it  is  perfectly 
true  ; but  if  it  be  extended  to  concrete  and  indi- 
vidual rights,  it  is  utterly  incorrect.  All  men  are 
equal  in  so  far  as  they  have  the  same  specific 
nature,  possess  both  body  and  spirit,  come  from 
the  same  principle,  have  the  same  end,  and  are 
subject  to  the  same  eternal  law.  But  in  every- 
thing else,  they  are  greatly  unequal ; and  nature 
itself  considered,  not  specifically,  but  individually, 
is  one  of  the  causes  of  that  inequality. 

“Place,  stripped  of  clothes,  a landowner’s 


NATURAL  RIGHT. 


63 


among  a dozen  workhouse  babies,  and  who  that 
you  call  in  can  tell  the  one  from  the  other?” 
Ten  to  one,  midwives  might.  “Put  the  bodies  of 
a duke  and  a peasant  on  the  dissecting  table,  and 
bring  if  you  can,  the  surgeon — who  can  tell  which 
is  the  duke,  which  is  the  peasant.”  Many  will  be 
able  to  do  so.  As  a rule,  nature  that  made  the 
duke  spring  from  a nobleman,  will  have  given 
him  more  delicate  fibres ; and  as  a compensation, 
it  will  have  given  the  peasant  coarser  but  more 
compact  tissues.  In  other  words,  both  are  equal 
as  men,  but  unequal  in  their  personal  qualifica- 
tions. Specific  rights  are  equal,  but  individual 
rights  are  unequal. 


64 


OWNERSHIP  AND 


CHAPTER  VII. 

WHAT  CAN  WE  OWN? — OCCUPANCY  VERSUS  LABOR 

INCREMENT. 

As  we  have  based  the  right  of  man  on  teleolo- 
gical considerations  and  on  nature  itself,  the  same 
order  of  thought  shall  determine  what  may  be 
occupied  and  possessed.  Man  must  use  exterior 
objects  to  maintain  his  existence,  support  his 
being,  evolve  his  powers,  and  reach  his  end ; 
then  those  things  alone  will  be  subject-matter  for 
ownership  which  can  forward  the  fulfilment  of 
those  duties. 

Dominion  implies  subjection,  then  the  beings 
owned  by  man  must  be  destined  to  man  by  their 
very  nature.  In  order  that  right  may  pass  from 
the  abstract  to  the  concrete  state,  man  must  be 
active ; he  must  consume  the  objects  appropriated, 
or  stamp  upon  them  his  own  individuality ; those 
objects,  therefore,  must  be,  either  immediately 
consumable,  or  capable  of  retaining  the  impress 
of  the  owner.  They  must  serve  a purpose  which 


NATURAL  RIGHT. 


65 


involves  exclusiveness,  consequently,  they  must 
not  be  exhaustless  and  unlimited.  Such  are  the 
necessary  characteristics  of  material  objects  which 
can  be  appropriated.  They  must  be  useful  to 
man,  or  at  least  capable  of  affording  pleasure. 
If  not  immediately  consumable,  they  must  be  fit 
to  bear  the  mark  of  individual  ownership.  They 
must  be  seized  upon,  apprehended,  and,  in  some 
way,  confined.  They  must  be  in  limited  quantity, 
otherwise  the  use  made  by  another  could  not  be 
an  infringement  of  the  owner’s  right.  Thus  air 
and  water,  when  unconfined,  cannot  be  owned  by 
anyone.  However,  if  machinery  be  constructed 
to  supply  them,  the  quantity  thus  supplied  may 
become  subject  to  ownership. 

We  come  now  to  the  first  act  of  appropriation, 
the  first  title  of  lawful  ownership,  not  the  sec- 
ondary or  derived  titles,  which  we  do  not  consider 
for  the  very  obvious  reason  that  their  soundness 
depends  on  the  legitimacy  of  the  primary  ones. 
Jurists  admit  two  primary  titles : Occupancy, 
and  accession  or  increment. 

Occupancy  is  the  act  by  which  man  takes  pos- 
session of  an  object  which  has  no  master,  with 
the  intention  clearly  manifested,  to  retain  it  in  his 


66 


OWNERSHIP  AND 


power.  It  is  of  three  kinds,  effective,  legal  or 
Active,  political. 

The  first  consists  in  a change  of  the  object 
which  gives  it  an  usefulness  or  value  which  it  had 
not  before.  This  occupancy  evidently  affixes  to 
the  object  the  mark  of  the  owner’s  individuality, 
and,  according  to  the  principles  already  devel- 
oped, gives  a title  in  virtue  of  the  right  of  nature. 

Legal  occupancy  consists  in  taking  hold  of  the 
object,  with  intention  of  retaining  it,  but  without 
at  once  imparting  to  it  a new  value.  It  holds  its 
validity  partly  from  nature,  since  the  occupier  has 
established  a relation,  which  did  not  exist  before, 
but  rather  more  ex  condicto,  as  the  State  must 
determine  what  amount  of  labor  will  secure  that 
title,  and  make  it  valid  before  the  community. 
Yet  society  cannot  refuse  to  give  it  a legal  exist- 
ence, because,  without  it,  improvements  were 
impossible.  The  state,  as  a rule,  gives  a condi- 
tional title,  which  becomes  perfect  when  occupancy 
has  become  effective. 

Political  occupancy,  is  taking  possession  of  a 
country,  to  give  it  a social  existence,  a govern- 
ment. It  involves  no  property  in  the  strict  sense 
of  that  word,  and  it  depends  for  its  validity  on 


NATURAL  RIGHT. 


67 


international  law,  which  is  partly  natural,  and 
partly  positive.  Some  conditions  must  be  ful- 
filled by  the  power  which  takes  possession  of  a 
country,  and  until  they  are  fulfilled  the  title  is  not 
perfect. 

A very  interesting  case  of  Political  occupancy 
was  of  late,  submitted  to  the  arbitration  of  Leo 
XIII,  and  solved  to  the  satisfaction  of  both  con- 
tending powers. 

Here  we  must  briefly  dispose  of  an  incidental 
question : Which  is  the  first  title.  Occupancy  or 
Labor?  We  answer  that  every  kind  of  occu- 
pancy involves  labor.  But  labor  does  not  neces- 
sarily imply  great  exertion ; a very  moderate 
effort  may  be  sufficient  to  perfect  legal  occupancy, 
a great  deal  of  labor  may  be  needed  to  accom- 
plish effective  occupancy.  In  the  social  state,  legal 
occupancy  must  precede,  because  a man  who 
goes  to  work,  must  be  protected  whilst  his  work 
is  going  on.  Hence  the  first  title,  at  least  in  the 
social  state,  is  legal  occupancy , it  is  perfected  by 
complying  with  the  conditions  determined  by  the 
state,  which  judges  what  amount  of  labor  shall 
be  sufficient  to  create  ownership.  If  we  suppose 
a man,  as  yet  unprotected  by  social  institutions, 


68 


OWNERSHIP  AND 


then  ownership  will  begin  when  the  ground  is 
first  “tickled  by  the  hoe,”  and  be  perfected  when 
it  shall  have  acquired  a new  value. 

If  we  choose  to  abstract  from  the  labor  involved 
in  occupancy,  and  contrast  occupancy  with  labor, 
then  legal,  or,  as  the  old  jurists  called  it,  Jic live 
occupancy  will  give  the  first  title,  and  effective 
occupancy  perfect  it.  Or,  if  we  choose  to  express 
the  same  truth  in  terms  of  labor,  the  first  labor 
expended  begins  the  title,  and  labor  carried  far 
enough  to  give  the  object  a new  value,  makes  the 
title  perfect.  In  civil  society,  as  it  is  the  province 
of  government  to  maintain  justice  and  prevent 
conflicts  between  citizens,  it  will  be  its  duty  to 
frame  laws,  not  in  order  to  create  a right  which 
is  based  on  reason  itself,  but  so  to  regulate  its 
application  as  to  reduce  the  friction  to  a minimum, 
and  preserve  the  rights  of  every  member  of  the 
body  politic. 

The  abstract  right  of  appropriation  comes  from 
nature  itself — occupancy  is  the  first  fact  which 
gives  it  a concrete  existence,  and  this  first  fact  is 
subject  to  the  jus  gentium,  i.  e.  to  natural  law 
interpreted  by  human  reason — Society  applies 
the  rights  founded  in  nature,  and  regulates  their 


NATURAL  RIGHT. 


69 


exercise  ; so  that  the  activity  of  one  man  may  not 
check  unduly  the  activity  of  another. 

Accession  is  the  second  of  the  titles  which 
legists  have  pi  imary.  It  may  be  of  three 

kinds,  natural,  artificial,  or  mixed. 

An  increase  in  value  which  comes  from  the 
concourse  of  population,  and  raises  the  rents,  is 
what  Mr.  George  and  others  called  unearned 
increment. 

It  is  evident  that  a natural  increment  belongs 
to  the  owner  of  the  object,  for  accidents  follow 
the  substance.  Artificial  increment  is  the  product 
of  labor ; if  the  owner  has  bestowed  that  labor 
on  his  property,  or  has  given  a compensation  to 
the  laborers  for  their  exertions,  nobodv  can 
dispute  his  title  to  the  increased  value.  An  in- 
crement springing  partly  from  nature’s  own 
activity,  and  partly  from  human  labor,  such  for 
instance  as  the  increase  of  live-stock,  evidently 
partakes  of  the  nature,  both  of  the  Natural  and 
of  the  Artificial  increment,  and  is  subject  to  the 
same  law. 

Does  this  rule  apply  to  the  so-called  unearned 
increment  ? Decidedly  so.  Why  is  a piece  of 
ground  more  in  demand  than  another  ? Because 


70 


OWNERSHIP  AND 


it  is  supposed  to  have  a special  utility,  to  afford  ex- 
ceptional opportunities  for  business,  to  save  labor, 
or  increase  profits.  According  to  the  principle, 
this  is  an  accident  which  ought  to  go  to  the 
benefit  of  the  owner ; just  as  the  increased  price 
of  the  Whittington  cat  goes  to  her  master,  when 
a rat-tormented  country  increases  the  demand  for 
felines,  and  thereby  gives  puss  an  accidental 
value.'  Said  cat,  according  to  Mr.  George,  goes 
back  in  gold.  Well  done.  Puss! 

In  fact,  everything  rises  in  value  with  the  in- 
crease of  demand. 

“ Every  piece  of  land  has  been  made  more  and 
more  valuable  by  the  presence  of  population. 
But  so  has  every  house  that  has  been  built  on 
the  land.  As  population  gathers  about  the  house 
and  other  houses  are  built  up,  every  brick  in 
the  first  one — yea,  and  every  stroke  of  labor 
that  went  to  make  the  brick,  or  put  it  in  posi- 
tion— is  raised  in  value.  In  other  words,  there 
is  no  such  thing  as  value  without  society — two 
persons  at  least — one  who  has  something  that 
the  other  wants.  In  this  respect,  therefore,  a 
house  and  even  the  labor  that  builds  a house,  is 
precisely  like  the  land  under  it.” — (Edward  Gor- 
don Clark,  in  the  North  American  Review,  Jan., 
1887.) 

But  the  owner  has  done  nothing  to  increase 


NATURAI.  RIGHT. 


71 


the  value  of  the  land.  Is  this  so  very  certain  ? 
Did  he  not  at  least  select  the  ground  with  a view 
to  a probable  improvement  ? The  sagacity  which 
is  proved  by  the  success  of  his  investment,  de- 
serves some  reward,  like  any  other  exercise  of 
human  powers.  Take  away  the  incentive  which 
makes  man  exert  his  ingenuity  and  foresight  to 
the  utmost,  and  you  will  have  checked  to  some 
extent  the  progress  of  society. 

But  did  the  commonwealth,  as  a corporate  or- 
ganization, do  anything  to  raise  that  value?  Not 
in  the  least.  Individuals  who  wish  at  any  price 
to  secure  that  particular  spot,  or  to  live  in  that 
particular  neighborhood,  have  raised  the  price 
unwillingly,  and  perhaps  unwittingly.  Will  you 
then  distribute  the  surplus  to  the  would-be  set- 
tlers, or  compel  the  owners  to  sell  ? • This  would 
be  an  unwarrantable  interference.  Will  you  con- 
hscate  the  increment  in  favor  of  the  community? 
But  lots  of  people  will  share  in  the  proceeds, 
v,/ithout  having  done  anything  whatever  to  raise 
the  price.  This  will  be  an  unearned  increment 
indeed. 

Moreover,  if  you  confiscate  the  increment,  you 
must  make  up  the  losses.  For,  if  the  owners 


72 


OWNERSHIP  AND 


have  not  deserved  the  rise,  neither  did  they  de- 
serve the  fall.  Thus  by  departing  from  the 
obvious  principle,  that  the  accident  follows  the 
substance,  you  have  entangled  yourself  in  a web 
of  yojir  own  weaving. 

With  regard  to  barter  and  exchange,  Laissez 
passer  is  commonly  the  best  policy.  When  men  will 
find  that  in  a certain  neighborhood  the  prices  are 
too  high,  they  will  settle  elsewhere,  and  the  greedy 
landowner  will  have  defeated  his  own  purpose. 

It  may  happen  that  some  m-en  cling  to  unim- 
proved real  estate  with  blind  tenacity.  Some 
cases  of  the  kind  will  undoubtedly  occur  even  in 
a thrifty  commonwealth,  but  self-interest  will 
prevent  the  exception  from  becoming  the  rule. 
It  were  not  wise  to  level  legislation  at  exceptional 
cases ; the  interference  of  the  state  might  do 
more  harm  than  good.  Pas  trop  gouverner,  do 
not  rule  overmuch  ! But  should  an  extreme  case 
arise,  should  a pig-headed  miser  block  the  avenue 
to  wealth,  and  check  social  progress ; the  state 
might  justly  use  its  eminent  domain  and  compel 
him  to  "accept  a fair  compensation.  This  does 
not  destroy  the  right  of  ownership,  but  asserts 
the  higher  claim  of  the  commonwealth. 


NATURAL  RIGHT. 


73 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

OWNERSHIP  IN  LAND. 

Although  very  severe  on  capitalists,  and  bold 
enough  to  mention  them  by  name,  Mr.  George 
does  not  follow  Karl  Marx  in  his  war  against 
private  ownership  in  capital.  In  fact  he  allows 
us  to  own  almost  anything,  but  when  we  come  to 
land,  he  draws  the  line,  and  is  emphatic  in  his 
averments:  “The  leaders  of  modern  thought 
are  too  wise  to  trace  the  right  of  property  in  land 
to  Natural  Law,  they  do  not  step  beyond  expe- 
diency ; the  very  men  who  speak  of  the  right  of 
occupancy  do  not  believe  in  it,  etc.” — Black 
Hawk  is  smuggled  in,  followed  by  a tribe  of 
Maoris.  Black  Hawk  speaketh  as  follows : 

“The  Great  Spirit  has  told  me  that  land  is  not 
to  be  made  property  like  other  property.  The 
earth  is  our  mother !” 

As  these  noble  savages  are  not  particularly 
careful  of  their  mother,  it  will  be  enough  to  oppose 
to  them  the  authority  of  the  learned  pundits  of 
India : 


74 


OWNERSHIP  AND 


“The  field  belongs  to  him  who  has  felled  the 
trees  and  cleared  the  land,  as  the  deer  belongs  to 
him  who  has  first  wounded  it.” 

But  we  would  prefer  allies,  who  could  repre- 
sent modern  civilization.  Let  us  see  whether  we 
cannot  find  a few. 

Professor  Woolsey  in  his  book  on  Political 
Science  speaks  as  follows : 

“As  the  life,  growth,  health,  the  very  existence 
of  the  human  race  depend  on  the  use,  consump- 
tion or  retention  of  articles  belonging  to  the 
physical  world,  there  is  a necessity  that  many 
things  should  be  appropriated  which  serve  for 
food,  clothing  or  shelter.”  (p.  44). 

“Labor  and  occupation  of  that  which  is  without 
an  owner  are  the  two  primary  sources  of  prop- 
erty.”' (p.  45). 

“In  hunting,  fishing,  nomadic  people,  there  is 
no  motive  for  separate  property  in  land,  unless  it 
be  in  that  which  is  connected  with  the  house,  the 
homestead  proper  or  the  garden.  . . . Land  begins 
to  be  appropriated  by  individuals  when  agricul- 
ture is  the  prevailing  employment.” 

“Assuming  it  to  be  made  out,  that  there  was 
little  or  no  individual  property  in  the  earliest 
human  societies,  we  do  not  reach  the  conclusion 
that  the  land  was  thought  to  belong  to  nobody 
. . . . the  exclusiveness  belonging  to  private 
property,  must  once  have  inhered  in  communal 
property  also.” 


NATURAf,  RIGHT. 


75 


Evidently  we  have  here  a demonstration  based 
on  the  natural  evolution  of  the  human  race,  and 
therefore  on  human  nature.  But  in  order  to 
realize  its  cogency,  the  work  itself  must  be  read; 
it  will  amply  repay  the  student’s  labor. 

Prof.  Kent.  (Address  to  Senior  Law  class, 
June  25th,  1885). 

“The  true  basis  of  the  right  of  individual 
property  is  that  only  in  this  right  has  it  been 
found  practicable  to  induce  men  in  general  to 
labor  and  save  to  acquire  wealth.  And  fixed  and 
exclusive  possession  of  land  is  as  necessary  to  its 
improvement  as  to  the  production  of  personal 
property.  And  all  the  wealth  of  the  world  has 
been  produced  in  reliance  on  the  law  of  private 
ownership.  Those  who  have  invested  their 
money  in  real  estate  are  as  much  entitled  to  pro- 
tection as  any  others,  and  the  abolition  of  property 
in  one  kind  would  be  no  more  or  less  unjust  than 
its  abolition  in  another.” 

■ Dr.  A.  Stockl,  (Social  Philosophy,  and  Philos- 
ophy of  Right,  2d  Part,)  after  giving  a complete 
analysis  of  the  concept  of  Domain,  transient 
(right  of  using),  permanent  (individual  private 
property),  and  collective  (corporate  property), 
proves  the  lawfulness  of  ownership : first,  from 
the  concept  of  order ; secondly,  from  the  origin 


76 


OWNERSHIP  AND 


of  value ; thirdly,  from  the  need  of  an  incentive 
to  sustain  exertion ; fourthly,  from  the  require- 
ments of  society ; fifthly,  from  the  necessity  of 
avoiding-  conflicts.  He  concludes  that  ownership 
is  just,  founded  on  natural  order  and  demanded 
by  it.  Coming  to  land  as  subject  to  ownership, 
he  finds  the  first  title  in  effective  occupancy : 

“Occupancy  can  become  a valid  title  of  acqui- 
sition, under  this  condition  only,  that  the  object 
held  is  suited  or  necessary  to  the  maintenance  of 
an  individual  or  a community,  and  the  satisfaction 
of  their  wants.”  . . . “The  occupier  can  take 
possession  of  land  as  far  as  he  is  able  to  labor 
and  transform  it,  either  by  himself  or  by  others, 
so  as  to  satisfy  those  wants.” — (Lehrbuch  der 
Philosophie,  p.  566.) 

It  would  be  impossible  to  do  justice  to  his  mas- 
' terly  treatment  of  the  question  by  a short  analy- 
sis. The  book  was  published  at  Mayence,  Franz 
Kirchheim,  in  1881. 

Mr.  A.  Thiers,  president  of  the  French  Repub- 
lic, has  written  a special  work  on  property  {La 
Propriete).  After  showing  how  land-ownership 
originated  in  labor,  which  gave  land  its  economic 
value,  and  how  society  could  but  sanction  that 
right,  he  sums  up  as  follows : 


NATURAI,  RIGHT. 


77 


“Man  has  a first  ownership  in  his  own  self  and 
his  inborn  powers ; a second,  less  closely  united 
with  his  very  being,  but  no  less  inviolable,  in  the 
product  of  those  powers.  This  product  includes 
all  that  is  called  earthly  possessions,  which  society 
is  bound  to  warrant  to  him.  For  without  that 
warranted  deed,  there  is  no  labor,  without  labor 
no  civilization,  not  even  the  necessaries  of  life, 
nothing  but  wretchedness,  high-handed  robbery, 
and  barbarism.” — (La  Propriete,  C.  V.,  p.  37.) 

Prof.  W.  Roscher,  of  Leipsic,  after  proving  the 
right  of  property  in  general,  observes  that  some- 
thing more  must  be  said  to  apply  the  demonstra- 
tion to  the  ownership  of  land : 

“A  certain  expenditure  of  both  capital  and 
labor  is  necessary  that  land  may  be  used  produc- 
tively, and  in  most  instances  this  employment  of 
capital  and  labor  is  of  long  duration,  irrevocable 
in  the  nature  of  things,  and  the  fruits  of  which 
can  be  reaped  only  after  some  time  has  elapsed. 
Now  this  co-operation  of  capital  and  labor  is  such 
that  no  one  would  undertake  to  devote  them  to 
the  cultivation  of  the  land,  had  he  not  the  strong- 
est assurance  of  possessing  it.” 

Dupont,  the  pupil  and  editor  of  Quesnay,  in 
his  introduction  to  the  famous  Tableau  Economi- 
que  of  his  master,  expresses  the  same  thoughts, 
perhaps  more  forcibly : 


78 


OWNEKSIIH'  AND 


“As  soon  as  men,  wlio  owned  some  personal 
or  movable  property,  have  made  use  of  their 
wealth  to  cultivate  some  part  of  that  land,  which 
as  yet  belonged  to  nobody,  and  yielded  nothing, 
they  become  by  natural  right  the  owners  of  the 
soil  which  they  have  tilled,  and  to  which  they 
have  imparted  a value ; for  that  value  which  their 
estate  owes  to  cultivation,  is  the  outcome  of  their 
labor,  of  their  industry,  of  their  physical  strength, 
of  their  personality,  of  the  outlay  of  that  wealth 
which  was  their  own.  To  wrest  that  field  from 
them  would  be  to  rob  them  both  of  the  capital 
and  of  the  labor,  which  they  have  spent  in  pre- 
paring, or  cultivating  the  ground ; this  robbery 
would  be  a violation  of  acknowledged  ownership.” 

These  quotations  are  sufficient  to  prove  that 
the  assertion  of  Mr.  George  is  too  sweeping.  In 
the  Cyclopedia  of  Political  Science,  3d  vbl.,  page 
383,  the  student  will  find  interesting  papers  by- 
Messrs.  L.  Faucher,  L.  Wolowski,  and  E.  Levas- 
seur.  These  distinguished  economists,  besides 
upholding  themselves  the  right  of  property  in 
land,  bring  forward  numerous  authorities,  and 
among  others  Portalis  and  Napoleon  I. 

We, beg  leave  to  end  these  quotations  with  the 
testimony  of  two  philosophers,  who  are  respec- 
tively the  heads  of  two  opposite  schools.  Im- 


NATURAL  RIGHT. 


79 


manuel  Kent  in  his  Metaphysica  Morum  (Latin 
translation  of  Gotlob  Born,  Leipsic,  B.  Schwick- 
ert,  1796).  Vol.  iv,  p.  583-596,  traces  back  the 
right  of  property,  and  in  particular  of  land  prop- 
erty, to  the  physical  fact  of  occupation.  Occupa- 
tion itself  he  justifies  by  the  postulatum : 

“A  rule  which  accepted  as  a law,  would  cause 
a thing  subject  to  my  free  will  to  become  res 
nullius  nobody’s  property,  would  be  contrary  to 
justice.” 

From  this  postulatum  he  evolves  the  exclusive- 
ness of  ownership, 

“This  postulatum  may  be  called  a permissive 
law  of  practical  reason;  giving  us  a power  which 
we  could  not  evolve  from  the  general  concept  of 
jus  taken  alone  ; namely,  that  of  imposing  on 
others  an  obligation  which  would  not  otherwise 
bind  them,  viz:  the  duty  of  abstaining  from  the 
use  of  some  material  objects  subject  to  our  will, 
because  we  have  occupied  them  first.  Reason 
requires  that  it  may  have  the  validity  of  a prin- 
ciple.”— (Chap,  i,  sec.  2,  p.  384.) 

Some  persons  may  not  object  to  have  this 
metaphysical  deduction  turned  into  plain  English; 
it  comes  to  this : 

In  order  to  live  and  grow  physically  and 


OWNERSHIP  AM) 


80 

morally  I must  take  hold  of  many  things  that  are 
outside  of  me,  and  which  as  yet  belong  to  no 
one.  Should  a law  make  those  things,  which  I 
have  taken  when  unclaimed,  nobody  s property^ 
such  a law  would  be  clearly  unjust.  On  the  other 
hand,  from  the  sole  idea  of  right  in  general,  I 
cannot  draw  the  power  of  saying  to  others : 
Hands  off!  I must  then  fall  back  on  the  principle 
that  a thing  already  belonging  to  me  cannot  go  in 
quest  of  a proprietor ; armed  with  it,  I can  say  to 
any  claimant  who  may  chance  to  step  forward ; 
Hold  on  ! I came  in  first ! 

Locke  is  less  metaphysical,  but  more  accessible 
to  common  mortals.  After  proving  the  right  of 
property  in  general,  he  comes  to  the  land  ques- 
tion. 

“But  the  chief  matter  of  property  being  now 
not  the  fruits  of  the  earth  . . . but  the  earth  itself, 
as  that  which  takes  in  and  carries  with  it  all  the 
rest,  I think  it  is  plain,  that  property  in  that  too 
is  acquired  as  the  former.  He  (man)  by  his  labor 
does,  as  it  were,  inclose  it  from  the  common. 
Nor  will  it  invalidate  his  right,  to  say  everybody 
else  has  an  equal  right  to  it,  and  therefore  he 
cannot  appropriate.  . . . God  and  his  reason  com- 
manded him  to  subdue  the  earth,  i.  e.  improve  it 
for  the  bfMiefit  of  life,  and  therein  lay  out  some- 


NATURAL  RIGHT. 


81 


thing  upon  it  that  was  his  own,  his  labor.  He, 
that  in  obedience  to  this  command  of  God, 
subdued,  tilled  and  saved  any  part  of  it,  thereby 
annexed  to  it  something  that  was  his  property, 
which  another  had  no  title  to,  nor  could  without 
injury  take  from  him.” — {Of  civil  government,  C. 
V.,  on  Property.) 

To  this  reasoning  of  Locke,  Mr.  Henry  George 
would  object,  that: 

“In  every  essential,  land  differs  from  those 
things,  which  being  the  product  of  human  labor, 
are  rightfully  property.  It  is  the  creation  of  God ; 
they  are  produced  by  man.  It  is  fixed  in  quan- 
tity : they  may  be  increased  illimitably.  It  exists 
though  generations  come  and  go  ; they,  in  a little 
while,  decay  and  pass  again  into  the  elements.” — 
(Social  Problems,  chap,  xix,  p.  218.) 

These  antitheses  clash  with  a sharp,  clanking 
ring,  but  as  they  do  not  spring  from  real  antino- 
mies, the  shocks  become  harmless.  Land  is  the 
creation  of  God  certainly,  and  so  is  everything 
else.  Man  creates- absolutely  nothing.  He  mod- 
ifies with  his  labor,  what  God  has  created ; he 
sets  free  forces  which  before  were  held  in  equi- 
librium ; he  causes  new  forms  to  spring  into 
existence,  which  matter  had  not  yet  evolved ; but 
the  power  to  evolve  them  lay  dormant  in  nature ; 


82 


OWNEKSIIH’  AND 


to  awaken  that  power,  and  start  it  into  full  activity 
is  indeed  a noble  achievement,  but  it  is  not 
creation.  What  Mr.  Henry  George  means  is  that 
the  share  of  labor  is  greater  in  industrial  products 
than  in  the  raising  and  reaping  of  harvests.  Sup- 
pose that  it  were  so,  we  would  have  a difference 
in  degree,  not  in  kind.  In  both  cases  matter  and 
force  are  supplied  by  our  great  Maker,  and  labor 
avails  itself  of  both. 

“ Earth  is  fixed  in  quantity  ” and  the  products 
of  labor  are  limited.  They  are  limited  by  the 
material,  which  cannot  be  greater  than  the  earth 
from  which  it  is  drawn,  unless  we  suppose  that 
the  contents  can  be  greater  than  the  container. 
They  are  limited  by  human  energy,  which  is  not 
infinite.  By  fixed  in  quantity  we  must  understand 
actually  measured  or  measurable.  In  this  sense, 
only,  is  it  true  that  the  earth  itself  is  a fixed 
quantity ; for  if  to  the  energies  which  it  holds  in 
its  bosom,  we  add  human  labor,  the  product  defies 
human  calculation.  In  other  words,  the  bulk  of 
the  earth  is  a fixed  quantity,  but  the  productive- 
ness of  the  earth  is  a variable  one.  It  is  true 
however,  at  least  we  think  so,  that  it  is  easier  to 
approximate  the  probable  yield  of  the  earth  than 


NATUKAL  RIGHT. 


83 


the  output  of  industrial  production ; but  here 
again  we  meet  a difference  in  degree,  not  in  kind. 

“Earth  exists  though  generations  come  and 
go” — Yes,  and  so  are  gold  and  diamonds  more 
lasting  than  man,  and  yet  Mr.  George  does  not 
oppose  ownership  either  in  diamonds  or  in  gold. 
In  fact  most  of  our  earthly  possessions  can  outlast 
us  ! Nothing  sublunary  will  last  forever — The 
differences  are  real,  not  specific — Everything 
which  may  be  owned  by  man,  differs  from  other 
things  equally  destined  to  his  use,  and  from  those 
differences  spring  various  duties.  The  owner  of 
a ship,  or  of  a tenement  house,  has  duties  which 
are  not  common  to  the  iron  master,  or  the  cotton 
grower,  and  conversely ; yet  all  those  gentlemen 
have  a perfect  right  to  their  property,  even  ac- 
cordinar  to  Mr.  Georgfe.  When  we  wish  to  find 
whether  a particular  object  may  be  held  in  prop- 
erty, we  must  examine  whether  it  has  the  test 
qualifications  recognized  by  moralists.  Whether 
it  is  useful  or  at  least  agreeable,  capable  of  re- 
ceiving the  impress  of  man,  or  at  least  of  being 
confined  by  its  owner ; it  must  be  limited,  for 
were  it  boundless  the  use  made  of  it  by  another 
man  would  not  abridge  the  owner’s  right. 


84 


OWNERS nu'  AND 


Now,  Land  possesses  these  characteristics  in 
an  eminent  degree.  It  is  not  only  useful  but  - 
indispensable,  it  can  receive  the  impress  of  man 
so  as  to  acquire,  and  permanently  retain,  an  utility 
and  value  which  it  may  take  a long  time  and 
much  labor  to  give  it,  but  which  it  will  retain 
permanently,  provided  that  succeeding  genera- 
tions do  not  allow  the  work  of  the  preceding 
ones  to  go  to  decay.  Hence  Professor  Sidgwick 
quoting  Mr.  Spencer,  appropriately  remarks  : 

“The  reasoning  used  to  prove  that  no  amount 
of  labor  bestowed  by  an  individual  upon  a part 
of  the  earth’s  surface  can  nullify  the  right  of 
society  to  that  part,  might  be  similarly  employed 
to  show  that  no  one  can,  by  the  labor  he  expends 
in  catching  or  gathering  supersede  the  just  claims 
of  other  men  to  the  thing  caught  or  gathered.” 

Logically,  denial  of  land  ownership  leads  to  a 
denial  of  the  right  of  ownership  in  capital.  This, 
in  turn,  leads  inevitably  to  communism.  It  is  the 
special  and  eminent  qualifications  of  land  to  be 
ap{>ropriated,  which  explains  why  authors  who 
set  about  treating  of  property  in  general,  almost 
constantly  refer  to  land  property  as  an  illustra- 
tion. 

Mr.  George  emphatically  asserts  that  man  has 


NATUKAL  RIGHT. 


86 


a right  to  the  product  of  his  labor,  it  must  be 
"his  against  the  whole  world.”  How  can  he  re- 
tain the  ownership  of  labor  spent  on  land,  if 
land  be  taken  away  from  him  ? He  has  used  land 
just  as  others  have  used  marble  or  iron.  You 
would  not  take  away  the  block  which  a sculptor 
has  transformed  into  an  almost  living  embodiment 
of  beauty.  Why  ? Because  if  he  had  the  right 
to  make  a statue,  he  had  the  right  to  use  a 
material  which  was  not  appropriated  by  another, 
or  buy  that  material  from  its  owner.  The  case  is 
precisely  the  same,  when  a man  has  tilled  unoc- 
cupied land,  or  bought  land  from  another.  In 
the  former  supposition,  he  has  mixed  his  labor 
with  it,  in  the  latter,  he  has  purchased  the  title  of 
another.  Labor  cannot  be  severed  from  the  land, 
and  it  is  precisely  labor  which  gives  it  value. 
" ’Tis  labor  that  puts  the  greatest  part  of  value 
on  land,  without  which  it  would  scarcely  be  worth 
anything.” — (Locke,  quoted  by  McCulloch  in  the 
British  Cyclopedia,  Art,  Political  Economy.) 

The  English  philosopher  considers  that  such 
culture  as  the  Indians  bestow  upon  the  earth 
gives  it  a fertility  scarcely  equal  to  one  thou- 
sandth of  that  which  the  proper  kind  of  labor 


86 


OWNERSIIIl’  AND 


would  impart  to  it.  And  you  would  confiscate 
that  fertility,  even  the  remaining  thousandth,  in 
order  to  reach  the  ground  value,  which  you  assert 
to  be  yours.  • In  such  a transaction,  where  is 
equity  ? 

Again,  Mr.  George  grants  the  property  of  the 
house  but  not  that  of  the  ground  upon  which  it  is 
built.  How  to  separate  the  two  is  a difficulty. 
Hence  the  brilliant  polemist  has  expressed  a 
regret  that  the  land-owner  could  not  be  separated 
from  the  house-owner.  No  regret  could  be  of  any 
avail.  We  have  heard  of  a man  in  the  gospel,  who 
walked  away  with  his  own  bed,  but  never  of  a man’ 
who  walked  away  with  his  house.  True,  modern 
improvements  enable  a man  to  put  his  house  on 
wheels,  but  in  many  cases  it  would  not  pay. 

“As  a matter  of  fact,  the  value  of  land  can 
always  be  easily  distinguished  from  the  value  of 
improvements.  ...  It  is  estimated  separately  by 
assessors.  . . . When  a fire  occurs,  and  improve- 
ments are  destroyed,  a clear  and  definite  value 
remains  in  the  land  ” — Yes,  the  market  value, 
which  is  partly  due  to  improvements.  The  asses- 
sors do  not  trouble  their  heads  about  the  history 
of  the  lot : whether  the  o-round  has  been  made 

o 


NATURAL  RIGHT. 


87 


up  by  bringing  to  the  spot  sand,  stone  or  oyster- 
shells  ; whether  anything  has  been  contributed 
by  human  industry,  or  the  whole  value  is  due  to 
public  prosperity,  is  for  them  a matter  of  indiffer- 
ence ; according  to  the  law  of  the  land,  they  base 
their  assessment  on  the  market  value,  and  there 
is  an  end  of  subtleties.  But  you  wish  that  your 
theorem  should  bear  translating  “into  terms  of 
Ethics,”  and  you  admit  that  a man  has  a full  right 
to  the  produce  of  his  labor  ; you  cannot  settle  the 
case  in  that  summary  manner.  In  the  same  page 
you  say:  “To  attempt  to  separate  all  that  the 
human  race  has  done,  from  what  nature  originally 
provided,  would  be  as  absurd  as  impracticable.” 
(^Progress  and  Poverty,  Book  viii,  C.  4.)  Here 
we  agree  completely.  Yes,  that  separation  is 
absurd,  as  well  as  impracticable. 

But  what  shows  at  once  how  natural  is  the  ex- 
clusive ownership  in  land  is  the  impossibility  of 
doing  without  it.  If  man  does  not  own  land  indi- 
vidually, the  tribe  or  nation  will  own  it  exclu- 
sively. Now  if  an  individual  wrongs  mankind  by 
excluding  other  men,  a nation  wrongs  other 
nations  by  following  the  same  course.  Either 
land  belongs  to  the  whole  species,  or  it  does  not; 


88 


OWNERS! I n>  AND 


if  the  former  be  true,  then  we  can  have  no  exclu- 
sive ownership : exclusive  ownership  of  a nation 
makes  the  wrong  national  instead  of  individual ; 
that’s  all.  If  it  does  not  belong-  to  the  whole  race 
collectively,  then  any  one,  not  debarred  by  pre- 
existing rights,  can  appropriate.  There  is  no 
foundation  whatever  for  the  exclusive  ownership 
of  a nation,  as  separated  either  from  the  collective 
ownership  of  the  race,  or  the  individual  ownership 
of  the  citizen.  If  one  has  not  the  right  to  appro- 
priate land  exclusively,  how  many  will  it  take  to 
make  a full-fledged  right?  Would  not  their  col- 
lective ownership  look  very  much  like  an  addition 
of  zeroes  ? 

The  inconsistency  of  admitting  ownership  in 
capital  and  denying  ownership  in  land,  is  made 
glaring  by  the  well  marked  divergence  of  the  two 
most  gifted  expounders  of  that  theory. 

Shall  the  landowners  be  compensated  ? Com- 
pensation or  no  compensation — that’s  the  ques- 
tion. 

They  must  be  compensated,  says  Mr.  Spencer 
for  “most  of  our  present  landowners  are  men 
who  have  either  mediately,  or  immediately  given 
for  their  estates  equivalents  in  honestly  earned 


KATUKAI.  RIGHT. 


89 


money.”  They  shall  not  have  a red  copper,  says 
Mr.  George,  “because  private  property  in  land  is 
a bold,  bare,  enormous  wrong.” 

The  reason  of  Mr.  Spencer  is  good ; and,  from 
their  common  standpoint,  that  of  Mr.  George  is 
just  as  valid;  for  if  private  property  in  land  is 
piracy,  like  Captain  Kidd’s  nautical  exploits,  then 
to  compensate,  is  to  take  away  the  people’s 
money  to  indemnify  pirates.  Of  yore,  when  a 
premise  led  to  either  of  two  conclusions,  both  of 
which  were  inadmissible,  the  premise  was  thrown 
out  as  worthless.  But  Hegelian  logic  has  changed 
all  that. 


90 


OWNEKSHIP  AND 


CHAPTER  IX. 

THE  STATICS  OF  MR.  SPENCER. 

In  the  Social  statics  of  Mr.  Herbert  Spencer,  a 
whole  chapter,  the  ninth  of  the  second  part,  is 
devoted  to  a fierce  onslaught  on  private  ownership 
in  land. 

It  is  lively  in  the  extreme,  charmingly  written, 
and  as  plausible  as  a paradox  can  be  made  by  the 
craft  of  a master.  In  fact,  Mr.  George  takes  it 
for  a demonstration.  Reluctantly  we  must  curtail 
it,  but  we  shall  try  to  preserve  the  meaning,  and 
leave  the  argument  unimpaired. 

Mr.  Spencer  begins  by  laying  down  the  funda- 
mental principle  : “ Given  a race  of  beings  having 
like  claims  to  pursue  the  objects  of  their  desires, 
given  a world  adapted  to  the  gratification  of  those 
desires — a world  into  which  such  beings  are  sim- 
ilarly born,  and  it  unavoidably  follows  that  they 
have  equal  rights  to  the  use  of  this  world.” 

It  looks  like  barbarism,  to  batter  this  beautiful 
period  with  distinctions,  but  it  must  be  done. 


NATURAL  RIGHT. 


91 


In  the  supposition  of  the  writer,  it  is  clear  that 
all  have  the  same  abstract  and  specific  rights,  but 
when  individual  activity,  and  other  accidental 
causes  come  into  play,  that  beautiful  equality 
soon  disappears. 

Let  a kind-hearted  man  invite  a crowd  of  boys 
to  storm  an  apple  tree  laden  with  luscious  fruit. 
All  at  first  have  the  same  right,  but  soon  the 
position  changes.  The  nimblest  has  his  pick  and 
choice.  All  right ; if  he  has  not  taken  an  unfair 
advantage  of  his  playmates.  The  last  will  have 
to  pluck  what  others  have  left  him ; it  is  his  mis- 
fortune. If  there  has  been  no  tripping,  no  pulling, 
no  pushing,  no  fighting,  a thing,  alas,  very  unlikely 
among  boys — they  grab  as  well  as  their  elders — 
each  one  will  soon  have  appropriated  what  he 
can,  without  inflicting  any  wrong  on  the  others. 
Equality  will  remain  an  abstraction ; practically  it 
has  become  a thing  of  the  past. 

“ Each  of  them  ” — of  the  beings  having  like 
claims — “is  free  to  use  the  earth  for  the  satisfac- 
tion of  his  wants.” 

“ Equity,  therefore,  does  not  permit  property 
in  land.” 

Alas  ! one  of  the  premises  is  wanting,  and  the 


<^2 


OWNERSHIP  AND 


Other  will  split  if  you  press  upon  it ; the  argument 
is  pretty,  but  it  will  not  stand  on  its  legs.  A prop 
is  at  hand.  “ For  if  one  portion  of  the  earth  may 
become  the  possession  of  an  individual  . . . o//ier 
portions  . . . may  be  so  held  ; and  eventually  ^/le 
whole."  Excepting  roads,  markets,  public  squares, 
etc.,  etc.,  which  necessity  itself  would  save  from 
exclusive  occupation.  Why ! if  the  whole  earth 
were  rented  out,  as  Mr.  Spencer  wants,  instead 
of  being  owned,  as  a part  of  it  is  now,  both  the 
inconvenience  and  its  natural  remedy  would  be 
iust  the  same. 

Absolute  necessity  would  prevent  men  from 
inclosing  the  whole  ground,  and  blocking  the 
highways.  But  if  you  suppose  that  some  lunatics 
would  insist  on  occupying  the  thoroughfares,  the 
duty  of  the  civil  power  would  be,  as  it  is  now,  to 
remove  the  obstructions. 

With  this  obvious  reservation,  we  wish  the 
whole  world  were  occupied,  then  the  earth  would 
be  mantled  in  flowers  and  fruits,  and  hymns  of 
praise  would  rise  heavenward  from  all  the  parts 
of  our  planet. 

But  we  are  now  threatened  with  a dilemma ; 
hap]>ily  it  turns  out  to  be  an  unicorn.  It  may  be 


NATURAL  RIGHT. 


93 


summed  up  as  follows  • If  die  whole  earth  were 
occupied  by  private  individuals,  all  but  the  owners 
would  be  trespassers — should  this  be  the  case, 
there  would  be  an  end  of  equality  and  of  all  hu- 
man rights,  the  right  to  live  included.  Even  if 
the  whole  earth  were  occupied,  provided  it  were 
done  without  trespassing  either  against  divine  or 
against  human  law,  others  besides  land-owners 
would  have  a full  right  to  live  on  this  planet.  For 
in  occupying  the  ground,  men  would  be  compelled 
both  by  law  and  by  necessity  itself,  to  let  others 
move  about,  and  attend  to  their  respective  avo- 
cations. 

Are  people  in  the  cities  trespassers  when  they 
do  not  own  a lot?  As  Mr.  George  truly  ob- 
serves, progress  leads  to  inter-dependence. 
Were  the  whole  earth  occupied,  there  would  be 
a greater  incentive  to  use  improved  agriculture, 
and  a greater  necessity  to  resort  to  a division  of 
labor.  Farmers  would  need  mechanics,  and 
mechanics  would  need  farmers,  just  as  they  do 
now,  and  more  than  they  do  now.  Dwellings  for 
workmen,  and  markets  for  the  exchange  of  pro- 
ducts, would  be  more  than  ever  indispensable: 
so  that  self-interest,  let  alone  justice,  would  compel 


M 


OWNERSHIl’  AND 


men  to  live  and  let  live.  Whether  the  ground  be 
owned  or  rented  does  not  alter  the  case  in  the 
least.  If  it  be  rented,  a sufficient  amount  must 
be  reserved  for  the  use  of  the  public ; if  occu- 
pancy is  yet  free,  then  either  the  common  sense 
of  the  occupiers,  or  the  public  power  must 
preserve  untouched  what  is  necessary  for  the 
public  good.  If  an  error  has  been  committed, 
and  ground  that  the  community  cannot  do  without, 
has  been  either  leased  or  occupied,  then  a com- 
pensation must  be  given,  and  the  tenant  or  owner 
must  vacate  the  premises. 

Mr.  Spencer  goes  on  : “ It  can  never  be  pre- 

tended that  the  existing  titles  to  such  property 
are  legitimate — violence,  fraud,  the  prerogative 
of  force,  the  claims  of  superior  cunning — these 
are  the  sources  to  which  those  titles  may  be 
traced.”  Too  sweeping ! It  may  be  perfectl\‘ 
true  of  Ireland  that  the  deeds  “were  written  with 
the  sword  rather  than  with  the  pen,”  but  Mr. 
.Spencer  himself  will  soon  mention  a title  written 
with  the  plough.  In  this  country  at  least,  most 
of  the  original  titles  were  written  in  furrows,  and 
sanctioned  by  law. 

“ I)Ut  'I'ime,  say  sonie,  is  a great  legalizer. 


NATURAL  RIGHT. 


9o 


How  long  does  it  take  for  what  was  originally  a 
ivrong  to  grow  into  a right?"  No  length  of  time 
can  work  such  a change  as  that,  but  immemorial 
possession  may  render  it  extremely  difficult,  or 
even  impossible,  to  prove  that  an  assumed  right 
grew  out  of  a wrong.  A heavy  burden  of  proof 
is  thrown  upon  the  man  who  questions  a long- 
standing possession  ; hence  the  legal  axiom  that: 
Possession  is  nine  points  of  the  law.  This  is  in 
accordance  with  equity  as  well  as  with  expe- 
diency. 

“The  right  of  mankind  at  large  to  the  earth’s 
surface  is  still  valid ; all  deeds,  customs,  and  laws 
notwithstanding.”  We  were  under  the  impression 
that  the  earth’s  surface  was  possessed  by  men,  at 
least  wherever  they  were  strong  enough  to 
conquer  wild  beasts.  We  know  of  no  deed, 
custom,  or  law  to  the  contrary.  Does  Mr.  Spen- 
cer mean  that  each  and  every  man,  that  the 
whole  race  both  collectively  and  distributively 
must  own  each  and  every  inch  of  ground  ? Then 
it  would  be  a matter  of  curiosity  to  see  the 
strange  instrument  in  which  such  an  entail  is 
recorded.  It  would  be  merely  a matter  of 
curiosity,  because  deeds  which  involve  an  evident 


96 


OWNERSHIP  AND 


impossibility,  are  justly  considered  as  null  and 
void. 

Mr.  Spencer  brings  to  the  rescue  a Cosmopolite 
— an  elegant  appellation — common  people  would 
use  the  word  tramp. 

“Hallo,  you  sir,”  cries  the  cosmopolite  to  some 
backwoodsman,  smoking  at  the  door  of  his 
shanty,  “ by  what  authority  do  you  take  possession 
of  these  acres,  that  you  have  cleared  ?”  Reluc- 
tantly, we  must  shorten  the  dialogue.  .Settler — 
“ I squatted  there.  I have  cut  down  the  wood 
and  ploughed  and  cropped  the  ground.”  Cos. — 
“Ay,  so  you  all  say” — Tramps  could  not  say  that 
much — “ Now  I want  to  understand  how,  by 
exterminating  one  set  of  plants,  and  making  the 
soil  bear  another  in  their  place,  you  have  consti- 
tuted yourself  lord  of  the  soil  for  all  the  succeeding 
time.” 

.Settler — “ I have  caused  the  earth  to  bring 
forth  things  good  for  food — things  that  help  to 
give  life  and  happiness.”  Poor  squatter,  he  does 
not  know  that  tramps  cannot  acknowledge  a right 
founded  either  on  labor  or  on  a new  utility  or 
value  imparted  by  labor.  Why  ! labor  is  just  the 
sort  of  thing  the  gaunt  fraternity  objects  to. 


NATURAL  RIGHT. 


97 


Cos — “Stin  you  have  not  shown  why  such  a 

process  makes  the  portion  of  earth,  you  have  so 

modified,  yours.  By  what  magic  have  these  acts 

made  you  sole  owner  of  that  vast  mass  of  matter, 

having  for  its  base  the  surface  of  your  estate, 

and  for  its  apex  the  centre  of  the  globe.”  I 

wonder  whether  that  foolish  squatter  had  claimed 

a spheroidal  sector?  People  who  have  not  gone 

to  school  claim  only  as  much  of  that  mass  of 

matter,  as  they  need  for  cultivation.  As  miners 

might  cause  the  foundation  of  the  field  to  be 

somewhat  shaky,  in  many  countries,  positive  law 

gives  the  squatter  the  first  claim  to  the  ore  under 

the  field,  or  obliges  those  who  wish  to  dig  it  out 

to  obtain  his  consent,  but  neither  the  squatter, 

nor  the  miner  has  the  slightest  inclination  to  claim 
* 

the  point  at  the  centre  of  the  earth. 

Settler. — “If  it  isn’t  mine,  whose  is  it?  I have 
dispossessed  nobody.  When  I crossed  the  Miss- 
issippi yonder,  I found  nothing  but  the  silent 
woods.  If  some  one  else  had  settled  here,  and 
made  this  clearing,  he  would  have  had  as  good  a 
right  to  the  location,  as  I have.”  Had  our 
squatter  studied  Kant  he  could  have  answered 
that  he  had  projected  his  individuality  on  that 


98 


OWNERSHIP  AND 


field,  and  that  he  fell  back  on  the  postulatum  : 
That  a law  by  which  a thing  subject  to  his  free 
action  should  be  made  res  nullms  would  be  a very 
unjust  law.  But  our  friend  has  not  read  Kant, 
he  goes  on  boldly,  and  almost  puts  his  foot  in  it. 
“Whilst  they  were  unreclaimed,  these  lands 
belonged  to  all  men!”  Our  friend  might  have 
avoided  that  slip  by  committing  to  memory  the 
following  words  of  Prof.  Woolsey:  “If  the 
world  was  common,  it  was  in  the  sense  of  being 
unappropriated,  and  not  in  the  sense  of  being 
held  in  joint  property.” — {Social  Science,  p.  49.) 

But  Cos.  is  not  the  man  to  let  it  pass ; not  he  ! 
“You  say  truly,  when  you  say  that  ‘whilst  they 
were  unreclaimed  they  belong  to  all  men.’  And  it 
is  my  duty  (Oh  I his  duty  I)  to  tell  you  that  they 
belong  to  all  men  still ; and  that  your  improve- 
ments cannot  vitiate  the  claim  of  all  men.” 
Tramps  included?  “Let  me  put  you  a case.  . . . 
Suppose  now  that  in  the  course  of  your  wander- 
ings, you  come  upon  an  empty  house — you  paint 
and  paper  and  whitewash.  On  some  fatal  day  a 
stranger  is  announced  who  turns  out  to  be  the 
heir  to  whom  this  house  has  been  bequeathed. 
Do  they  (your  improvements)  quash  the  title  of 
the  original  claimant?  ” 


NATURAL  RIGHT. 


99 


Settler. — “ No.” 

Cos. — “Neither  do  your  pioneer  operations 
give  you  a valid  title  to  this  land.” 

Here  the  poor  settler  is  nonplussed ; he  merely 
begs  for  the  value  of  his  improvements,  and  the 
request  is  granted.  In  practice  the  dialogue 
would  have  ended  differently.  The  cosmopolite 
would  have  asked  for  his  dinner,  promising  to 
pay  for  it,  by  working  on  the  snake  fence ; and, 
after  being  fed  by  the  hospitable  farmer,  would 
have  skipped  without  doing  a stroke  of  work. 
Our  settler  might  have  denied  the  parity.  He 
could  have  said  that  the  whole  human  kind  being 
the  owner,  according  to  the  tramp,  he  could  keep 
his  property  until  the  whole  human  kind  showed 
cause  why  it  should  dispossess  an  honest  man 
and  deprive  him  of  the  fruits  of  his  labor.  He 
might  have  denied  point  blank  that  the  earth 
was  the  joint  property  of  all  men.  He  would 
have  been  supported  by  the  consent,  morally 
unanimous,  of  philosophers,  in  averring  that  the 
community  of  ownership,  which  had  been  assumed 
as  the  primitive  condition  of  mankind,  was  nega- 
tive, not  positive.  In  other  words,  that  Providence 
had  given  land  to  men  in  general  without  deter- 


100 


OWNERSHIP  AND 


mining  what  should  be  the  share  of  each  one ; 
leaving  it  to  reason  to  frame  the  conditions,  and  the 
terms  of  the  land  tenure.  Or  he  could  have  an- 
swered more  simply,  that  what  belongs  to  every- 
body belongs  to  nobody.  He  may  have  been 
taken  aback  by  the  sophistry  of  the  stranger,  he 
may  not  have  known  what  elementary  school- 
books had  said  on  the  subject;  but  Mr.  Spencer, 
who  knew  all  this,  did  not  treat  him  fairly  when 
he  left  him  speechless  in  presence  of  the  claims 
of  a worthless,  wandering  cosmopolite. 

Mr.  Spencer  fancies  that  he  has  solved  the 
principal  difficulties,  when  he  has  transformed  the 
landlords  into  tenants.  But  to  whom  should  those 
tenants  pay  the  rent?  To  the  State?  But  the 
State  has  no  more  right  than  they  have ; nay, 
much  less ; the  State  has  spent  no  labor  on  that 
field  ; the  pioneer  has  bedewed  it  with  the  sweat 
of  his  brow.  But,  for  the  sake  of  argument,  grant 
some  sort  of  ownership  to  that  moral  being  the 
State,  since  the  land  is  the  joint  property  of  the 
whole  human  race,  the  State,  at  best,  is  but  one 
of  the  partners  of  a joint-stock  company.  Since 
when  can  one  of  the  partners  rent  out  the  com- 
pany’s property  without  the  knowledge  and  con- 
sent of  the  others  ? 


NATURAL  RIGHT.  101 

The  State  does  worse,  it  compounds  a felony. 
The  pioneers  have  robbed  mankind  of  its  prop- 
erty, the  State  comes  and  says  : “You  are  guilty, 
this  is  evident,  but  if  you  put  the  rent  in  my 
pocket,  you  can  keep  what  you  have  taken ; I 
shall  protect  you  against  the  world  ! ” 

And  when  the  State  shall  have  rented  out  all 
the  available  lands,  compounded  all  the  felonies, 
what  will  remain  for  the  disinherited?  Yes, 
something  will  remain,  the  platonic  satisfaction 
of  knowing  that  they  are  virhtally  the  joint- 
owners  of  the  whole  surface  of  the  elobe. 

We  beg  leave  to  refer  the  reader  to  the  book 
of  Prof.  Woolsey  on  Social  Science,  for  an  able 
refutation  of  this  remarkable  chapter.  To  us  it 
is  a choice  bit  of  English,  and  a clever  satire  on 
tramps. 


102 


OWNERSHIP  AND 


r 


CHAPTER  X. 

ABSOLUTE,  OR  NOT  ABSOLUTE? 


According  to  Mr.  Spencer,  if  men  have  a right 
to  make  the  soil  private  property,  such  a right  is 
absolute,  sacred,  not  on  any  pretence  to  be 
violated — of  course  he  denies  the  right  altogether, 
and  this  absolute  character,  is  one  of  the  reasons 
of  his  denial.  “After  all,”  says  the  eminent 
English  writer,  “nobody  implicitly  believes  in  land- 
lordism. We  hear  of  estates  being  held  under 
the  Kings,  that  is,  the  State.  Moreover  we  daily 
deny  landlordism  by  our  legislation.  Is  a canal, 
a railway,  a turnpike  road  to  be  made  ? we  do 
not  scruple  to  seize  as  many  acres  as  may  be 
requisite ; allowing  the  holders  compensation  for 
the  capital  invested,  etc.” — Why  that  compensa- 
tion ? If  we  do  not  believe  individual  men  to  be  the 
true  owners  of  those  acres  why  do  we  pay  them  for 
a thing  that  does  not  belong  to  them  ? This  is  a 
strange  way  of  proving  that  we  do  not  believe  in 
their  ownership — Oh,  but  they  have  spent  money 


NATURAI,  RIGHT. 


103 


on  those  acres — This  was  their  own  lookout,  they 
should  not  have  spent  money  on  other  people’s 
property.  If  the  facts  mentioned  by  Mr.  Spencer 
prove  anything,  they  prove  just  the  reverse  of 
his  proposition.  If  public  good  requires  the  use 
of  a private  citizen’s  property,  his  own.  right  must 
yield  to  the  social  right,  but  if  society  can  return 
an  equivalent,  it  is  bound  to  do  so ; (always  in 
the  supposition  that  it  pays  with  the  people’s 
money  for  property  justly  claimed  by  the  owner) 
for  in  the  moral  as  well  as  in  the  physical  order, 
forces  may  hold  one  another  in  equilibrium,  the 
greater  may  overcome  the  smaller,  motion  may  be 
modified  in  direction  or  intensity,  but  as  long  as 
the  sources  of  power  are  at  work,  the  powers 
themselves  retain  their  energy.  We  know  but 
one  right  that  knows  of  no  check,  the  right  of 
advancing  in  moral  perfection ; this  right  can 
never  conflict ; and,  what  is  more,  it  can  never  be 
abused,  for  as  the  old  masters  have  it : A moral 
virtue  is  a good  quality  of  the  soul  which  makes 
the  life  of  man  righteous,  and  cannot  be  vitiated  by 
abuse. 

Does  the  great  philosopher  tell  us  why  private 
land  ownership  must  be  absolute  or  cease  to 


104 


OWNERSHIP  AND 


exist?  Not  at  all,  but  in  place  of  the  much 
needed  explanation,  he  supplies  us  with  a dilemma 
(those  hoimecl  arguments  are  quite  to  his  liking): 

“Either  men  have  a right  to  make  the  soil 
private  property,  or  they  have  not.  If  men  have 
not  such  a right,  we  are  at  once  delivered  from 
the  several  predicaments  already  pointed  out.” 
(We  have  already  noticed  those  predicaments.) 
“ If  they  have  such  a*  right,  then  is  that  right 
absolute.”  The  first  horn  being  hollow  would 
snap  in  our  hands,  so  we  take  hold  of  the  second, 
but  rudely  tear  off  the  conclusion  which  is  left 
hanging  upon  it.  We  say  men  have  such  a right, 
but  it  is  not  absolute. 

Even  natural  rights  are  subject  to  limitations. 

Nature  itself  prompts  a musical  man  to  pour 
forth  his  soul  in  musical  strains,  and  yet,  should 
the  owner  of  a hand  organ  insist  on  striking  up 
Hail  Columbia,  close  to  the  stand  from  which  a 
speaker  addresses  his  friends  and  countrymen  on 
some  vital  issue,  say  the  choice  of  a mayor  for 
the  Empire  City,  the  poor  artist  would  fare  badly, 
l.ittle  would  it  boot  him  to  insist  that  he  has  just 
as  much  right  to  that  particular  spot  as  any  other 
denizen  of  Gotham,  that  his  music  is  just  as  pa- 


NATURAL  RIGHT. 


105 


triotic  as  the  speech  itself,  etc.,  etc.,  he  would 
soon  learn  that  private  claims  must  yield  to  the 
claims  of  society,  that  mere  convenience  must 
give  way  before  necessity,  and  that  pleasure  must 
yield  to  business.  He  had  reasoned  thus : “Either 
a man  has  the  right  of  turning  the  crank  of  a 
hand-organ,  or  he  has  not.  If  he  has  not,  then 
his  liberty  is  abridged ; if  he  has  the  right,  then 
that  right  is  absolute.”  Such  was  his  reasoning, 
but  the  poor  man  had  misinterpreted  the  Amer- 
ican Constitution. 

When  we  say  that  the  right  of  ownership  is 
absolute,  if  we  mean  that  no  man  or  body  of  men 
standing  on  no  better  ground  than  that  of  mere 
expediency  or  self-interest  can  lawfully  advance 
a counter  claim,  we  can  say  in  that  narrow  sense 
that  it  is  absolute.  But  if  we  mean  that  it  can 
hold  in  abeyance  the  Dominion  of  God,  the  Emi- 
nent Domain  of  the  State,  or  the  claim  of  extreme 
necessity  pressed  by  a fellowman,  then  we  put  on 
the  right  of  ownership  a strain  that  human  liberty 
itself  could  not  bear,  for  even  human  liberty  must 
yield  to  a superior  moral  power. 

To  discuss  the  whole  question  of  the  conflicts 
of  rights  would  require  a special  work  of  vast 


106 


OWNERSinr  AND 


proportions ; for  our  purpose  it  will  be  enough 
to  sum  up  the  main  conclusions  that  bear  on  the 
present  issue. 

The  supreme  dominion  of  God  limits  the  own- 
ership of  man.  None  can  acquire  property  in 
defiance  of  Divine  Law,  of  Moral  Principles  or  of 
a just  law  enacted  by  the  civil  power. 

In  the  use  of  his  property,  man  must  bear  in 
mind  that  the  right  is  derived  from  the  right  of 
God.  Hence  he  can  not  avail  himself  of  it  to 
defeat  the  purposes  for  which  it  has  been  granted, 
nor  shirk  the  special  duties  entailed  by  the  very' 
nature  of  the  property  held. 

A constant,  all-absorbing,  endless  pursuit  of 
wealth,  not  on  account  of  any  good  to  be  accom- 
plished, but  simply  for  the  sake  of  hoarding  up 

wealth,  is  at  variance  with  the  moral  order. 

♦ 

With  regard  to  the  State,  every  citizen  must 
respect  Eminent  Domain ; that  is,  the  right  in- 
herent in  the  supreme  power  of  civil  society  to 
use  the  property  of  its  members,  when  it  is  indis- 
pensable for  the  Being  or  Well-being  of  the 
Commonwealth;  with  the  understanding,  however, 
that  a suitable  compensation  be  given,  whenever 


NATURAL  RIGHT. 


lOT 


public  burdens  would  otherwise  fall  unequally  on 
the  various  units  of  the  body  politic. 

Hence  no  citizen  can  lawfully  obstruct  the  ave- 
nues to  public  prosperity,  or  avoid  bearing  his 
share  of  public  burdens,  all  the  claims  of  private 
ownership  notwithstanding. 

With  regard  to  his  brother-men,  the  owner  is 
bound  to  remember  that  the  claims  of  charity 
must  be  met,  and  that,  in  the  case  of  extreme 
necessity,  no  right  whatever  can  free  him  from 
the  duty  of  relieving  the  wants  of  his  neighbor. 

But  if  ownership  is  so  hedged  about,  would  it 
not  be  more  correct  to  substitute  the  word 
Usufruct?  Unhesitatingly  we  return  a negative 
answer. 

It  is  true  that  man’s  ownership  contrasted  with 
the  perfect  and  essential  dominion  of  God,  is 
nothing  but  usiifruct ; and  when  considering  the 
subordinate  relations  of  man  who  receives  all  he 
has,  even  his  very  being,  from  his  Maker,  great 
writers  have  applied  that  word  to  the  derived 
and  dependent  ownership  of  man,  especially  when 
speaking  of  large  hoards  of  gold  and  silver. 

But  if  we  compare  proprietorship  with  other 
human  rights,  the  term  usufruct  is  misleading. 


108 


OWNERSHIP  AND 


There  are  several  essential  differences  between 
Usufruct  and  Property.  Usufruct  implies  a right 
to  the  use  or  utility  an  object;  ownership,  to 
the  object  itself.  Usufruct  is  revocable,  owner- 
ship is  not.  The  latter  may  indeed  be  held  in 
abeyance  by  a superior  moral  power,  but  not  by 
any  other  human  ownership.  The  right  of  usu- 
fruct may  be  traced  back  to  the  grantor,  the  right 
of  ownership  clings  to  the  proprietor,  back  of  him 
it  reaches  none  but  the  great  Lord  and  Master  of 
all.  Usufruct  does  not  imply  the  power  of  selling 
the  object,  or  disposing  of  it.  Free  disposal  is 
essential  to  ownership.  It  is  better,  therefore, 
not  to  use  the  two  words  indiscriminately. 


NATURAL  RIGHT. 


109 


CHAPTER  XI. 

CAN  THE  STATE  GRANT  A DEED? 

No ! says  Mr.  George,  emphatically.  “The 
institution  of  public  debts,  like  the  institution  of 
private  property  in  land,  rests  upon  the  prepos- 
terous assumption  that  one  generation'  may  bind 
another  generation.  If  a man  were  to  come  to 
me  and  say,  ‘here  is  a promissory  note  which 
your  great-grandfather  gave  to  my  great-grand- 
father, and  which  you  will  oblige  me  by  paying.’ 
I would  laugh  at  him,  and  tell  him  that  if  he  wanted 
to  collect  his  note,  he  had  better  hunt  up  the  man 
who  made  it.” 

“Though  the  sovereign  people  of  the  State  of 
New  York  consent  to  the  landed  possessions  of 
the  Astors,  the  puniest  infant  that  comes  wailing 
into  the  world  in  the  squalidest  room  of  the  most 
miserable  tenement  house,  becomes  at  that 
moment  seized  of  an  equal  right  with  the  million- 
aires. And  it  is  robbed  if  the  right  be  denied.” 

“ Although  the  whole  people  of  the  earth  in 
one  generation,  were  to  unite,  they  could  no  more 
sell  title  to  land  against  the  next  generation,  than 
they  could  sell  that  generation.” 


110 


OWNERS! I II'  AND 


These  are  strong  sayings,  but  Mr.  George  is 
consistent.  If  private  property  in  land  is  bare, 
bold  robbery,  then  State  ownership  cannot  be 
anything  else,  for  it  is  equally  inconsistent  with 
the  joint-ownership  of  the  puniest  baby  that 
comes  into  this  world,  and  the  consent  of  the 
whole  world  could  not  make  it  right.  But  the 
principle  will  bear  another  conclusion.  If  the 
State  has  no  exclusive  ownership  in  land,  it  can- 
not grant  a lease  any  more  than  it  can  sell,  for 
nobody  can  lease  anybody  else’s  property. 

These  conclusions  resemble  very  much  a 
demonstration  ab  absurdis,  for  they  follow  from 
the  premises,  and  yet  common  sense  refuses  to 
admit  them.  “The  American  people  have  failed 
to  see  the  essential  injustice  of  private  property 
in  Land,”  says  Mr.  George.  Of  course  they 
have,  and  so  have  other  civilized  nations.  “ To 
affirm  that  man  can  rightfully  claim  exclusive 
ownership  in  his  own  labor,  when  embodied  in 
material  things,  is  to  deny  that  any  one  can  right- 
fully claim  exclusive  ownership  in  Land.” 

The  civilized  world  has  drawn  a very  different 
conclusion.  If  a man  can  claim  exclusive  owner- 
.ship  in  his  own  labor  when  embodied  in  material 


NATURAL  RIGHT. 


Hi 


things,  then  when  it  is  embodied  in  land,  man  can 
claim  exclusive  ownership  in  land.  Such  has 
been  the  conclusion  of  Americans  as  well  as  of 
other  people,  and  candidly  that  conclusion  is  more 
legitimate  than  the  opposite  one,  which  is  drawn 
by  Mr.  George. 

Indeed,  we  cannot  help  concluding  as  common 
folks  do,  unless  we  maintain  the  preposterous  as- 
sertion, that  we  may  embody  our  labor  in  the 
wood,  coal,  marble,  gold,  or  diamond,  to  which 
our  labor  gives  value,  but  cannot  embody  it  in 
land  which  owes  to  the  same  labor  its  produc- 
tiveness. 

But  enough  on  the  question  of  Natural  Law ; 
we  must  now  proceed  directly  to  prove  that  the 
State,  though  it  does  not  create  ownership,  must 
needs  sanction  it  and  regulate  its  exercise. 

Among- the  functions  of  the  government,  none 
are  more  important  than  the  preservation  of  order, 
peace  and  security.  These  the  State  could  not 
guard  safely  were  it  not  armed  with  the  power  to 
decide  the  questions  which  Natural  ‘ Law  may 
have  left  unsettled.  Nature  indeed  has  been 
careful  to  engrave  in  the  heart  of  man  the  first 
moral  principles,  and  to  shed  a powerful  light  on 


112 


OWNERSHIP  AND 


the  immediate  consequences  of  those  principles, 
but  it  has  left  many  remote  conclusions  and  prac- 
tical problems  to  be  worked  out  by  human  reason. 
We  can  draw  from  nature  both  the  right  of  ap- 
propriation, and  the  validity  of  effective  occupancy 
as  a title.  But  what  acts  will  make  occupancy 
legal  or  valid  before  the  community?  What 
amount  of  labor  will  transform  legal  into  effective 
occupancy?  What  instrument  must  be  held  by 
the  owner,  in  order  to  prove  that  he  has  a perfect 
title  ? These  are  questions  which  human  wisdom 
must  decide.  But  when  men  have  not  a self- 
evident  rule  to  go  by,  or  when  passions  and  self- 
interest  warp  their  minds,  they  arrive  at  conflicting 
results,  which  translated  into  facts  must  disturb, 
and  at  times,  convulse  the  state.  It  is  therefore 
the  province  of  the  government  to  give  the 
citizens  clear,  practical  rules  for  the  guidance  of 
social  enterprise.  The  supreme  power  must  as- 
sert itself,  and  its  chief  prerogatives  must  come 
into  play.  The  Legislative  power  must  frame  the 
rules  of  action,  state  what  acts  may  claim  a pro- 
visional title,  what  amount  of  labor  will  perfect  it, 
what  forms  will  make  it  valid  before  the  commu- 
nity. The  owner  cannot  at  the  same  time  claim 


NATURAL  RIGHT. 


113 


State  protection  and  reject  State  control.  The 
executive  power  must  carry  out  and  enforce  the 
law,  and  the  Judiciary  take  cognizance  of  real  or 
alleged  violations.  Should  the  State  do  less  than 
this,  it  would  prove  either  recreant  to  its  trust,  or 
powerless  to  perform  its  functions. 

But  when  the  title  is  granted  and  made  perfect, 
can  the  State  annul  it  at  will  ? By  no  means. 
As  it  did  not  create  the  right,  it  cannot  abolish  it. 
Forms,  of  course,  it  may  modify.  It  may  even 
change  the  terms  of  land  tenure,  provided  that  in 
doing  so  it  does  not  curtail  vested  rights,  without 
the  holder’s  consent. 

Mr.  George  insists  on  the  changes  which  land 
tenure  has  undergone ; but  he  seems  to  forget : 
1st,  That  exclusiveness  is  discernible  in  tribal,  or 
patriarchal,  as  well  as  in  individual  ownership ; 
2nd,  That  the  progress  has  been  invariably 
towards  a greater  fixity  of  tenure,  and  3d,  “That 
there  is  a natural  movement  as  society  advances, 
from  common,  to  separate  property  in  land  and 
chattels,”  (W.  Roscher,  Pol.  Econ.)  and  that  con- 
sequently, advancing  civilization  instead  of  im- 
pairing vested  rights,  has  given  them  greater 
strength  and  permanency. 


114 


OWNKKSIIII’  AND 


Mr.  George  assails  the  right  of  governmciil ; 
to  grant  deeds,  on  the  ground  that  one  generation 
cannot  bind  another.  To  be  defensible  the 
proposition  must  be  qualified  as  follows,  zcnless 
the  one  be  bound  to  the  other  by  moral,  or  political 
lies.  When  successive  generations  belong  to  the 
same  body  politic,  they  preserve  the  same  cor- 
porate existence,  just  as  the  human  body  remains 
substantially  the  same,  though  every  particle  of 
matter  be  renewed  within  a short  span  of  years. 
In  society  it  would  be  as  difficult  to  state  when 
one  generation  ends  and  another  begins,  as  it 
would  be  to  time  the  birth  of  successive  genera- 
tions of  white  and  red  corpuscles  in  the  human 
blood.  Were  not  nations  to  preserve  their 
identity  through  successive  generations,  what 
would  become  of  treaties  ? They  would  not  be 
worth  the  parchment  they  are  written  on ; con- 
tracts would  lose  their  binding  power,  and 
International  Law  would  be  nothing  but  an  empty 
bawble. 

Mr.  George  tells  us  that  he  would  refer  the 
creditor  of  his  great-grandfather  to  that  revered 
gentleman  himself.  We  surely  know  better  than 
that.  Should  an  I.  O.  U.  duly  signed  by  the 


NATURAL  RIGHT. 


115 


progenitor  of  Mr.  George  be  held  by  some  one 
in  the  city,  the  distinguished  publicist  would  have 
no  rest  until  he  had  purchased  the  document  at 
its  face  value.  Nay,  he  would  insist  on  paying 
interest  at  the  legal  rate.  We  have  known  this 
very  thing  to  be  done  by  a friend  of  ours,  a 
banker  who  certainly  was  no  fool;  que  voulez- 
vous!  people  praised  him  for  it!  Mr.  George 
himself  would  do  no  better.  Perfectly  aware  that 
the  statute  of  limitation  has  barred  the  claim  of 
his  great-grandfather’s  creditor,  if  the  unlucky- 
note  represented  an  honest  debt,  v/hich,  owing  to 
untoward  circumstances,  had  remained  unpaid, 
his  keen  sense  of  family  dignity,  would  make  him 
fret  until  the  tiny  bit  of  paper  had  been  duly 
honored. 

If  society,  with  the  consent  of  the  persons 
interested,  may  make  or  modify  the  terms  of  the 
land  tenure,  could  we  not  admit  that  a new 
society,  just  in  the  period  of  formation,  or  a 
political  organization  in  which  all  the  land-owners 
would  agree,  might  revert  to  the  plan  of  joint- 
ownership  ? Mr.  George  believes  that  this 
consent  could  be  secured  without  much  difficulty. 
“To  fight  it  (nationalization  of  land)  would  be  as 


116 


OWNERSHIP  AND 


if  a dog  with  a tin-kettle  tied  to  his  tail,  should 
snap  at  the  hand  that  offered  to  free  him.” — 
{Land  Question,  C.  XIV.)  But  dogs  would  do  it 
in  a moment.  As  for  men,  most  of  them  consider 
the  tin-kettle  as  highly  ornamental.  Land-owners 
might  turn  on  the  kind-hearted  socialist,  just  as 
travelers  do  on  the  no  less  benevolent  highway- 
man, who  wants  to  save  them  the  trouble  of 
carrying  a heavy  load  of  gold  dust.  But  sup- 
pose the  consent  given,  unless  such  a society 
were  under  very  exceptional  circumstances,  it 
would  act  in  defiance,  not  of  an  imperative,  but 
of  a dh'ective  mandate  of  reason — nahirce  sua- 
dentis. 

Such  is  the  conclusion  of  Aristotle  after  an 
exhaustive  examination  of  the  communistic  dream 
of  Plato  (with  Plato  it  always  remained  a mere 
dream).  We  have  already  mentioned  the  objec- 
tions of  St.  Thomas  against  collective  ownership; 
his  doctrine  is  admitted  by  very  nearly  all  the 
•Schoolmen,  we  might  say  all,  for  two  or  three 
oddities  may  be  neglected.  Modern  Economists, 
from  different  premises,  have  reached  the  conclu- 
sion which  both  philosophers  and  theologians 
had  adopted  before  them. 


NATURAL  RIGHT. 


117 


“Many  socialists,”  says  W.  Roscher,  “have 
proposed  to  make  the  State  sole  proprietor  of  the 
soil,  sometimes  adding  the  condition  that  the 
previous  private  owners  should  be  compensated 
in  capital,  when  it  would  be  at  least  supposable 
that  private  capital  might  be  enticed  to  cultivate 
it,  if  long  and  sure  leases  of  it  were  made.  This 
would  be  a good-demesne  husbandry,  extending 
over  the  whole  country.  We  need  only  glance 
at  those  kingdoms  in  which  something  analogous 
is  to  be  found,  especially  in  the  despotisms  of  the 
East,  to  divine  that  such  a system  does  not  suffice 
to  insure  the  real  productiveness  of  a nation’s 
economy.” — (Polit.  Ec.,  Sec.  88.) 

Mr.  Thiers  makes  precisely  the  same  state- 
ments. We  heard  of  late  an  unexpected 
confirmation  from  the  lips  of  a missionary  coming 
from  Zulu-land.  There,  the  system  advocated,  is 
the  law  of  the  State.  People  will  try  to  get  out 
of  the  land  all  they  can  during  the  time  of  their 
lease,  but  nobody  will  dig  a well  or  plant  a tree. 
Agriculture  is  unproductive,  wasteful  and  sta- 
tionary. 

Orthodox  English  Economists,  i.  e.  those  who 
follow  Adam  Smith  and  Ricardo,  agree  with 
Roscher  and  Thiers. 

“Is  the  expropriation  of  landlords  a measure 


118 


OWNERSHIP  AND 


economically  sound,”  says  Prof.  SIdgwick  (in  the 
Contemporary  Review,  Nov.  1886)  “We  turn  to 
the  orthodox  economists,  who  answer  almost 
unanimously  that  it  is  not ; that,  not  to  speak  of 
the  financial  difficulty  of  arranging  compensation, 
the  business  of  owning  and  letting  land  is,  on 
various  grounds,  not  adapted  for  government 
management ; and  that  a decidedly  greater 
quantum  of  utility  is  likely  to  be  obtained  from 
land,  under  the  stimulus  given  by  complete 
ownership,  than  could  be  obtained  under  a system 
of  leasehold  tenure.”  In  a note  the  learned 
professor  adds:  “Mr.  Mill  is,  so  far  as  I know, 
the  only  important  exception ; and  his  orthodoxy 
on  questions  of  this  kind,  is  somewhat  dubious.” 
Very  dubious  indeed,  for  we  have  a letter  of  his, 
addressed  to  Mr.  de-  Laveleye,  and  dated, 
Avignon,  Nov.  17th,  1872,  in  which  the  following 
passage  occurs.  We  translate  literally  from  the 
original  French. 

“ I deem  it  undeniable  that  the  reforms  which 
must  be  made  in  the  institution  of  property  con- 
sist chiefly  in  organizing  some  form  of  collective 
ownership  to  compete  with  individual  property. 
There  remains  the  problem  of  managing  those 


NATURAI,  RIGHT. 


119 


joint-estates.”  Well  might  Mr.  George  exclaim 
again : “ In  the  name  of  the  prophet — figs  !” 

This  letter  was  suggested  by  the  interesting 
study  of  Mr.  de  Laveleye  on  Albnends  or  small 
village  corporations  which  cultivated  land  in 
common  ; but  even  with  regard  to  those  patriar- 
chal communities,  Mr.  de  Laveleye  had  some 
misgivings.  We  quote  his  words  from  the 
edition  which  contains  an  introduction  by  Mr. 
Leslie  (page  17): 

“ I know  not  whether  the  nations  who  have 
lived  tranquilly  under  the  shelter  of  those  patri- 
archal institutions,  will  ever  arrive  at  a happier  or 
more  brilliant  destiny,  but  this  much  appears 
inevitable  (the  italics  are  ours)  they  will  desire 
like  Adam  -in  ‘ Paradise  Lost  ’ ” (It  was  not  yet 
lost !)  “to  enter  on  a new  career,  and  to  taste  the 
charm  of  independent  life,  despite  its  perils  and 
responsibilities.”  Figs  again ! 

Mr.  George  thinks  highly  of  Quesnay,  but 
v/hat  will  he  say  of  No.  4,  in  Maximes  generates 
du  gouvernement  d'^m  royatime  Agticole  : 

“Let  the  ownership  of  lands  as  well  as  of 
movables,  be  secured  to  the  lawful  proprietors ; 
for  the  security  of  property  is  the  essential  foun- 
dation of  the  economic  order  of  society.” 


120 


(JWNKRSIIIP  AND 


“Without  the  certainty  of  ownership,  the  land 
would  remain  without  cultivation.  There  would 
be  neither  proprietors  nor  farmers  willing  to 
make  the  necessary  expenditure,  in  order  to  give 
it  value,  and  improve  it,  were  not  the  keeping . 
both  of  the  land  and  of  its  produce,  secured  to 
those  who  make  such  outlays.  It  is  the  security 
of  permanent  ownership  which  causes  labor  and 
the  expenditure  of  money  in  the  improvement 
and  cultivation  of  land,  as  well  as  in  commercial 
and  industrial  undertakings,  etc.” 

Prophets  seem  to  be  against  Mr.  George;  and 
prudence  requires  nations  as  well  as  individuals 
to  heed  the  warnings  of  prophets. 


NATURAL  RIGHT. 


121 


CHAPTER  XII. 

ABUSE  AND  REMEDY. 

Mr.  George  has  seen  with  growing  disgust  the 
blots  that  mar  our  civilization.  He  has  felt  a 
generous  sympathy  for  the  disinherited,  a burning 
indignation  against  the  wrong-doers,  a glowing 
hope  of  felling  with  one  blow  the  dread  monster 
of  pauperism.  With  his  love  for  the  poor  we  are 
in  entire  sympathy ; we  fain  would  see  his 
indignation  turned  into  generous,  not  scornful, 
compassion ; his  hope,  alas ! we  cannot  share ; 
for  so  long  as  human  nature  remains  such  as  it 
now  is,  the  return  of  the  golden  age  must  remain 
an  impossibility.  Is  there  any  flaw  in  the  handi- 
craft of  Nature  ? Not  at  all.  Man  having  the 
glorious  power  of  working  out  his  destiny,  not 
fatally  but  freely,  may  use  and  abuse  his  freedom  ; 
he  has  done  both,  and  will  continue  to  do  so. 

Had  Mr.  George’s  exposure  of  abuses  been  as 
calm  and  as  free  from  exaggeration  as  it  is  fear- 
less, it  would  have  proved  most  useful  to  society. 
His  strictures  are  not  all  without  foundation.  It 


122 


OWNKRST nr  AND 


is  true  that  vast  grants  of  land  have  been  made 
recklessly.  It  is  true  that  corners  that  would 
raise  the  price  of  the  necessaries  of  life  above  a 
reasonable  maximum,  and  beyond  the  purchasing 
power  of  the  poor,  would  be  criminal,  and  could 
claim  no  right  to  State  sanction.  It  is  true  that 
vast  transfers  of  capital  made  on  no  better  foun- 
dation than  prospective,  or  rather  imaginary 
wealth,  are  against  the  laws  of  commutative 
justice.  But  what  are  the  remedies  ? ist,  A 
higher  moral  standard ; or,  let  us  say  it  plainly, 
strong,  pervading,  Christian  principles ; not 
merely  speculative,  but  penetrating  our  daily  life 
as  an  active,  riding  power.  Without  the  influence 
of  such  principles,  all  social  adjustments  will 
prove  unavailing.  The  laJifiindia  * was  not  the 
primary  cause  of  the  destruction  of  Rome, 
although  it  unquestionably  hastened  its  downfall. 
The  true  cause  is  found  in  these  words  of  red- 
handed  Jugurtha  : “ O venal  city  ! soon  shalt 

thou  perish,  if  thou  find  a .purchaser  !”  2nd,  In 
wise  legislation.  When  vast  landed  estates  were 
granted,  it  was  with  the  intention,  both  of  enticing 
foreign  capital,  and  of  enlisting  the  interest  of 


* System  of  vast  landed  estates. 


NATUKAl.  RIGHT. 


123 


the  purchasers  in  the  rapid  development  of  the 
country.  That  the  original  purpose  has  not  been 
always  frustrated,  is  manifest  in  the  great  western 
settlements,  in  the  creation  of  Cullman  county  in 
Alabama,  and  in  other  successful  enterprises  of 
the  kind.  But  the  power  conferred  by  such 
grants  is  so  liable  to  abuse,  so  easily  degenerates 
into  monopoly,  that  the  greatest  caution  is  re- 
quired from  those  who  represent  the  interest  of 
the  people,  lest,  in  shaping  the  conditions  of  the 
grant,  they  create  a landed  despotism.  3rd,  A 
government  intrusted  to  the  wisest  and  best  men. 
This  depends  on  the  people  themselves.  They 
choose  their  own  rulers.  Should  they  prefer 
private  interest  to  public  good,  barter  away  their 
votes,  elect  men  to  office  not  on  account  of  their 
worth,  but  because  they  pander  to  popular  preju- 
dice, no  social  institution  could  stand  the  pressure 
put  upon  it.  “ If  all  men  were  true  Christians,” 
says  W.  Roscher,  “ a community  of  goods  might 
exist  without  danger,  but  then  also,  the  institution 
of  private  property  could  have  no  dark  side  to  it. 
Every  employer  would  give  his  workmen  the 
highest  wages  possible,  and  demand  in  return 
only  the  smallest  possible  sacrifice.” 


124 


OWNKRSIUl'  AND 


From  a merely  philosophical  stand-point,  Aris- 
totle rejects  the  plans  of  an  obscure  sophist 
yclept  Phaleas,  who  wished  to  secure  both  liberty 
and  equality,  by  dividing  land  equally,  but  without 
interfering  with  other  kinds  of  wealth.  This 
chapter  of  the  old  philosopher  has  not  lost  its 
actuality,  we  quote  from  it  a few  instructive  sen- 
tences : 

“ The  greed  of  men  is  insatiable,  they  are 
pleased  at  first  with  a^few  oboli,  but  after  getting 
them*  they  want  more  until  their  cravings  go 
beyond  limit.  To  have  no  bounds  is  the  very 
nature  of  ambition,  for  the  satisfaction  of  which 
most  men  consume  their  lives.  A more  thorough 
cure  than  to  equalize  possessions,  is  to  teach 
those  who  by  temperament  are  good  and  mod- 
erate, not  to  seek  more  than  they  ought  to  have ; 
and  to  make  it  impossible  for  the  greedy  and  the 
wicked  to  get  more.  The  latter  will  be  powerless 
if  they  be  fewer  in  number,  and  jtistly  dealt  with. 
But  even  in  his  plan  of  equalization  Phaleas  pro- 
ceeded wrongly,  when  he  made  man  equal  in 
landed  property.  For  wealth  consists  also  in 
slaves,  in  chattels,  in  money,  in  commodities,  and 
in  instruments  of  labor.  He  ought  therefore  to 
have  equalized  those  kinds  of  wealth  also,  or  he 
should  have  left  all  kinds  of  wealth  alone.  . . . 
The  nature  of  his  constitution  shows  that  it  is 
meant  only  for  small  commonwealths.  Of  the 


X.VrUKAL  RIGH'i'. 


Ui) 


republic  of  Phaleas  it  is  no  difficult  matter  to  see 
whether  it  is  wise  or  otherwise.  Kalos  e me 
Kalos.” — (Pol.  Lib.  2,  c.  4,  p.  506-7,  Firmin 
Didot.  Land  Tax. 

Mr.  George  thinks  he  has  found  a panacea  in 
Land  Tax  as  the  sole  tax.  This  idea  was  probably 
first  advanced  by  Ouesnay,  but  on  very  different 
ofrounds. 

o 

Although  a great  man,  at  least  great  as  an 
authority  on  pills  and  plasters,  after  fully  demon- 
strating the  importance  of  agriculture,  he  ended 
by  riding  a hobby.  He  thought  that  the  best 
way  to  help  agriculture  was  to  tax  it,  and  he 
wanted  the  tax  to  be  direct,  not  indirect ; he  as- 
serted that  it  raised  the  price  of  bread,  which  we 
may  easily  believe,  and  that  by  this  means,  it 
benefited  the  agricultural  interest.  It  would  be 
unfair  to  judge  Ouesnay  only  when  on  his  hobby ; 
his  economic  problems  are  truly  instructive,  and 
he  certainly  rendered  science  a service  by  breaking 
the  bonds  of  the  old  commercial  school.  Adam 
Smith,  who  for  a time  followed  his  lectures,  re- 
mained his  friend  and  admirer,  and  was  saved,  by 
his  strong  common  sense,  from  attempting  to  ride 
the  same  hobby,  whilst  Turgot  and  Storch  be- 


12(.) 


OWNERSHIP  AND 


Strode  the  old  nag,  and  have  come  to  grief.  In 
France,  Turgot  was  Minister  under  Louis  XVI, 
fought  the  parliament  with  edicts,  the  people  with 
sabres,  and  fell  with  a crash.  Malesherbes  who 
was  a member  of  the  same  cabinet  gave  us  the 
following  appreciation  of  their  way  of  ruling: 
“Mr.  Turgot  and  myself  were  very  honest  folks, 
very  learned,  with  a passionate  craving  after 
good.  Who  would  not  have  thought  that  to 
appoint  us  ministers  was  the  very  best  thing  that 
could  be  done  ? And  yet,  knowing  men  only  as 
they  are  in  books,  unskilled  in  the  management 
of  affairs,  we  governed  badly — unwillingly,  un- 
wittingly, we  have  done  our  share  towards 
bringing  about  the  Revolution.” 

.Storch  ruled  the  finances  of  Russia  under 
Alexander  I,  and  soon  brought  the  country  to 
the  brink  of  ruin.  Such  at  least  was  the  state- 
ment of  Count  Nesselrode,  who  was  called  to 
power  to  reverse  the  policy  of  Storch. 

Yet  Ouesnay  expressly  states  that  his  doctrine 
does  not  apply  either  to  maritime  powers,  or  to 
countries  which  have  become  too  poor  to  bear  it. 
John  Locke,  who  seems  to  favor  the  idea  of  a 
land  tax  as  preferable  to  any  other,  does  it  on  the 


NATURAL  RIGHT. 


127 


ground  that  in  a purely  agricultural  country  the 
land  owner  will  have  in  the  end  to  pay  all  other 
taxes  by  giving  more  for  the  commodities  which 
he  is  bound  to  purchase,  and  that  it  is  both  more 
convenient  and  more  economical  to  pay  the  whole 
amount  in  the  lump  than  in  detail.  Both  assert 
emphatically  that  private  ownership  in  land  is 
both  lawful  and  expedient.  We  do  not  feel  called 
upon  to  discuss  the  system  of  Ouesnay  because 
it  has  long  been  superseded  by  more  advanced 
theories,  and  because  it  does  not  apply  to  us.  A 
nation  possessing  over  4,000  miles  of  sea-coast, 
whose  wealth  is  represented  by  12,640  millions 
in  land  and  cattle,  and  28,555  millions  in  other 
values,  cannot  be  called  “Un  royavme  agricole.” 

But  Mr.  George  has  departed  widely  from  the 
principles  and  maxims  of  the  physiocratic  school ; 
his  rent-tax  is  intended  as  an  indirect  confiscation 
of  the  land  value.  Here  is  the  whole  theory  in 
a nutshell : 

“ It  will  not  be  enough  to  merely  put  all  the 
taxes  upon  the  value  of  the  land.  It  will  be  nec- 
essary, where  rent  exceeds  the  present  govern- 
ment revenues,  to  commensurately  increase  the 
amount  demanded  in  taxation,  and  to  continue 
that  increase  as  society  progresses  and  rent  ad- 


128 


nWNRR.SHIl'  AND 


vances.  Rut  this  is  so  natural  and  easy  a matter 
that  it  may  be  considered  as  involved,  or  at  least 
understood,  in  the  proposition  to  put  all  taxes  on 
the  value  of  land.  That  is  the  first  step,  upon 
which  the  practical  struggle  must  be  made.  When 
the  hare  is  once  caught  and  killed,  cooking  him 
will  follow,  as  a matter  of  course.” — {Progress 
and  Poverty,  Book  VIII,  Chap.  2.) 

Ay ! but  there  are  five  million  hares  to  be 
killed  and  cooked ! How  will  they  stand  the 
operation,  since  they  are  not  to  be  killed  outright, 
but  by  inches  ? 

“To  do  this  the  easy  way  is  to  abolish  one  tax 
after  another,  until  the  whole  weight  of  taxation 
falls  upon  the  value  of  land.  When  that  point  is 
reached,  the  battle  is  won.  The  hare  is  caught, 
killed  and  skinned,  and  to  cook  him  will  be  a 
very  easy  matter.” — {The  Land  Qiiestion,  Chap. 
XI.)  So  the  hare  must  understand  what  is  in 
store  for  her  when  it  is  proposed  to  consolidate 
existing  taxation  upon  land  values. 

How  Mr.  George  can  imagine  that  the  carrying 
out  of  such  a plan  will  raise  wages,  increase  the 
earnings  of  capital,  root  out  pauperism,  give 
employment  to  all,  elevate  morals,  purify  the 
government,  utterly  baffles  our  comprehension. 


NATURAL  UIGUT. 


Itu' 

How  can  it  raise  wages  ? By  what  magic  v/ill 
the  confiscation  of  landed  property  increase  the 
demand  for  factory  product,  or  the  competition 
of  capital  for  labor  ? According  to  ordinary  laws, 
the  leaseholder  will  try  to  get  all  he  can  out  of 
the  lands  with  the  greatest  possible  economy, 
regardless  of  what  the  land  will  be  worth  after- 
wards. If  he  can  save  a little  labor,  he  will  dis- 
miss one  or  more  hired  hands,  and  send  them  to 
compete  with  unskilled  factory  labor.  The  pro- 
ducts of  the  farm  will  be  both  scantier  and  dearer. 
The  workingman  will  pay  less  for  his  whiskey 
and  his  tobacco — a doubtful  improvement ! for 
his  clothing,  perhaps — but  the  difference  will  not 
be  very  great,  surely  not  great  enough  to  offset 
the  higher  price  of  the  necessaries  of  life,  and  the 
keen  competition  for  unskilled  work. — For  house 
rent  not  a cent  to  be  paid  ! — If  you  leave  the 
houses  to  their  owners,  but  oblige  them  to  pay 
the  ground-rent  to  the  State,  will  they  not  be  just 
as  free  as  before  to  rent  their  houses  at  the 
highest  price  ? Now  all  you  will  have  done  for 
the  workingman  is  to  tear  from  his  breast  the 
hope  of  having  a little  house  and  garden  of  his 
own,  where  he  may  enjoy  the  comfort  of  undi- 


130 


OWMKR.SIIII’  AND 


vided  ownership,  whither  he  may  retire  in  his  old 
age,  and  which  he  may  bequeath  to  his  wife  and 
children.  Phaleas ! Phaleas ! your  plan  is  not 
wise  ! But  will  the  capitalists  be  benefited  ? Let 
us  see.  If  the  land  upon  which  the  capitalist  has 
erected  his  factory  belongs  to  another,  the  rent 
must  go  into  the  pocket  of  the  government  in- 
stead of  the  land-owner’s.  Very  well.  But  in 
that  case  how  will  he  be  able  to  pay  more  for 

labor  ? If  he  owned  the  land,  he  will  have  to  pay 
a heavy  tax  to  the  government,  and  so  have  much 

less  margin  than  before.  Where  then  will  his 
profit  be? — He  will  have  no  tax  to  pay. — What 
tax  will  he  be  free  from  ? Whiskey  and  tobacco, 
besides  the  income  tax  required  by  States  and 
cities.  Figure  all  these  taxes  out,  add  them  to- 
gether, subtract  the  sum  from  the  rent,  which  will 
begfin  for  all  those  who  owned  the  land  before, 
where  is  the  profit  ? Moreover,  tbasS-4arx-es  will 
have  to  be  raised  as  the  value  of  the  ground  in- 
creases, and  soon  those  who  have  merely  trans- 
ferred the  payment  of  the  rent  to  the  State  will 
see  rent  absorb  all  the  value  of  the  land.  The  rent 
will  rise  with  the  efforts  they  make  to  improve 
the  country,  and  they  will  soon  be  in  as  bad  a 


NATURAL  RIGHT. 


131 


plight  as  the  owners  of  the  ground.  Indeed  they 
were  already,  for  they  had  started  with  a disad- 
vantage : only  the  new  system  did  not  at  first 
increase  their  charges,  whilst  it  put  heavier  bur- 
dens on  those  who  owned  the  land.  But  we  will 
only  take  the  value  of  the  ground  rent.  Well, 
and  how  will  you  make  the  distinction  ? Will  not 
improvements  raise  the  value  of  every  inch  of 
ground  ? Will  you  determine  the  assessed  value 
not  by  the  market  price,  but  by  the  number  of 
square  feet,  then  you  will  indeed  take  a heavy- 
load  from  the  capitalists  but  throw  it  on  the 
shoulders  of  husbandmen ; that  is,  five  millions 
will  have  to  bear  nearly  the  whole  expense  of 
governing  fifty-six  millions.  This  will  not  last, 
because  at  every  turn  of  the  screw,  farmers  will 
have,  in  self  defense,  to  raise  the  price  of  the 
necessaries  of  life — who  will  pay  ? The  poor 
workingman,  who  will  have  to  feed  himself  and 
family.  And  it  is  the  workingman  who  is  sup- 
posed to  be  benefited ! May  Providence  and  the 
good  sense  of  the  American  people  save- them 
from  such  a benefit ! 

Turn  it  as  you  please,  if  you  assess  the  tax 
according  to  the  area,  you  discriminate  most 


132 


OWNERS) UP  AM) 


unjustly  against  liusbandry,  for  it  requires  more 
space  to  raise  grain,  hay,  cotton  and  sugar,  than 
to  make  watches,  machinery,  shoes  or  clothing. 
If  you  assess  proportionately  to  the  value  that  the 
ground  accpiires  by  being  built  upon  or  by  being 
in  the  neighborhood  of  a city,  then  you  levy  a 
heavy  tax  on  improvements,  and  deter  anybody 
from  occupying  empty  ground  or  building  upon  it. 

This  system  will  root  out  pauperism — How  so  ? 
Will  it  make  the  sick,  the  weak,  the  old  who  have 
no  savings,  more  able  to  work  and  make  money  ? 
Will  it  make  the  slothful,  active ; and  the  drunk- 
ards, temperate?  No  it  will  turn  adrift  five 
million  land  owners  ; and  those  among  tnem,  who 
lived  on  their  rent  will  have  to  be  supported  by 
the  community.  For  when  you  speak  of  killing, 
skinning  and  cooking  you  speak  metaphorically. 
You  mean  killing  land-ownership,  but  not  the 
land-owners.  But  I am  anxious  to  know  on  what 
land-owners  shall  live,  when  landownership  is 
dead. 

You  want  to  purify  the  government,  to  exter- 
minate jobbing,  lobbying,  etc.,  and  you  put  in  the 
hands  of  State  officials  the  administration  of  agri- 
cultural lands  worth  at  least  ten  billions,  plus  all 


NAI'URAL 


lyii 

the  ground  on  which  stand  buildings  worth  thir- 
teen billions  and  more  ! 

State  officials  will  have  to  lease  all  that  immense 
property,  collect  the  rent  and  dispose  of  it,  and 
you  think  that  all  incentive  to  corruption  and 
bribery  will  have  disappeared!  Well!  perhaps 
so,  but  we  have  never  seen  anything  that  looked 
to  us  more  like  “ leather  and  prunello.” 

You  are  making  a guess  at  the  future,  and 
doubtless  you  are  more  of  a prophet  than  we 
are ; but  judging  from  analogous  facts  and  from 
the  forces  Avhich  you  put  into  motion,  we  would 
make  our  forecast  as  follows  : Should  your  plan 
be  adopted,  capital  would  part  company  with 
agriculture,  subsistence  would  rise  in  value, 
swarms  of  laborers  would  leave  the  field  for  the 
factory,  and  bring  down  wages  to  the  margin  of 
starvation.  People  finding  that  your  fair  promises, 
like  the  apples  of  Sodom,  “ turn  to  ashes  on  the 
lip,”  would  forget  that  like  Malesherbes  you  are 
a very  honest  man,  fond  of  their  good  to  a passion. 
They  would  call  you  a false  prophet,  perhaps  do 
something  worse,  which  God  forbid ! (N.  B. — 

They  cut  off  the  head  of  Malesherbes.)  Happily, 
the  common  sense  of  the  American  people,  will 


134 


OWNERSHIP  AND 


save  us  the  trouble  of  comparing  notes,  after  the 
catastrophe. 

We  are  asked  to  accept  all  this  on  the  ground 
of  equity.  Let  us  take  two  workmen  who  have 
saved  something  by  hard  labor  and  severe 
economy.  The  one  has  invested  his  earnings  in 
a cotton  factory,  the  other  in  a cotton  field;  when 
the  hare  is  cooked  the  former  keeps  everything, 
the  latter  loses  everything,  and  this  is  equity! 
Phaleas,  your  plan  is  . . . '■otherwise!' 


NATURAL  RIGHT. 


135 


CHAPTER  XIV. 

OBJECTIONS  DRAWN  FROM  ECONOMY. 

A few  words  more  about  economic  objections, 
and  we  have  done.  We  fain  would  leave  this 
part  of  the  subject  to  such  men  as  Messrs. 
Atkinson  and  Gunton,  but  we  cannot  ignore 
altogether  objections  which  present  themselves 
with  credentials  from  a sister  science.  Happily 
we  shall  not  have  to  discuss  all  the  objectionable 
propositions  contained  in  Progress  and  Poverty,. 
it  will  be  enough  to  condense  the  argument  and 
try  the  soundness  of  the  premises. 

Mr.  George  sets  out  with  a proposition  which 
is  extremely  misleading.  According  to  him, 
political  economy  should  be  as  definite  in  its  re- 
sults as  any  mathematical  science.  It  can  be 
deduced  from  this  evident  axiom — “That  men 
will  seek  to  gratify  their  desires  with  the  least 
exertion — this  principle  is  to  political  economy 
what  the  attraction  of  gravitation  is  to  physics.” 
It  would  have  been  more  correct  to  compare  it 
with  the  law  of  least  action  proposed  by  Mau- 


oWNKkSiUI'  AND 


L ;•;,(» 

pertuis  and  developed  by  Euler  {Menioh'cs  dc 
r Acadeniie  de  Berlin,  1751) — N'ature  zvorks  a 
change  with  the  least  waste  of  pcrwer.  But  neither 
the  law  of  gravitation  nor  tliat  of  least  action, 
has  more  than  a distant  analogy  with  the  economic 
postulatum.  The  moon  when  whirling  through 
space,  never  slackens  her  speed  or  modifies  her 
course  for  fear  of  raising  the  tide  too  high ; even 
her  apparent  whims  are  governed  by  inflexible 
but  unerring  laws.  Man  may  stop  or  blunder,  he 
may  pursue  his  course,  alter  it,  or  retrace  his 
steps.  Here  we  have  a variable  force  which  will 
not  be  imprisoned  in  numbers.  Then  comes  the 
Iminatezial  Capital  of  Adam  Smith;  Mr.  George 
may  say  that  it  is  no  capita!  at  all,  but  none  the 
less  do  brain  power,  acquired  skill,  and  moral 
conditions,  influence  Production,  Distribution  and 
Consumption  of  wealth.  Yet  those  forces  cannot 
be  expressed  in  definite  numbers,  they  must 
preserve  the  character  of  indeterminate  co- 
efficients. 

We  may  neglect  them,  like  a tradesman  who 
would  calculate  his  future  profits  without  leaving 
room  for  contingencies,  or  probable  losses;  the 
sum  or  product  would  be  in  accordance  with  the 


NATURAL  RIGHT. 


137 


figures,  but  at  variance  with  the  facts;  or  we  may 
introduce  them  into  our  calculation  by  giving  them 
an  assumed  value,  but  the  answer  will  be  more  or 
less  hypothetical.  In  both  cases,  the  observation 
of  Mr.  de  Laveleye  will  hold  good:  “Economic 
phenomena  undergo  a multitude  of  varied  and 
varying  influences,  which  do  not  adapt  themselves 
to  strict  mathematical  deductions.” — (Revue  des 
Deux  Mondes,  V.  lo,  3 p.,  p.  453.) 

Mr.  George  makes  all  the  assumptions  which 
his  course  of  reasoning  requires,  and  he  concludes 
as  if  those  assumptions  were  based  on  facts,  or 
were  mathematical  laws.  Thus  he  assumes  that 
land-owners  would  be  just  as  ready  to  improve 
property,  if  they  were  mere  lease-holders ; and 
he  concludes  that  there  would  he  more  produc- 
tion, and  less  waste  of  labor ; he  believes  that  if 
they  paid  rent  to  the  State,  there  would  be  an 
end  of  speculation  in  real  estate,  (just  as  if  men 
who  speculate  in  futures  could  not  speculate  in 
rents,)  and  he  concludes  that  morality  would  be 
the  gainer ; he  assumes  that  property  would  be 
better  managed  by  government  officials  than  by 
individual  owners,  and  he  concludes  that  politics 


138 


OWNKRSIlll’  AM) 


would  be  improved  and  purified,  whilst  j)roperty 
itself  would  become  more  valuable. 

This  is  simply  building  castles  in  the  air. 

The  talented  writer  has  three  principal  counts 
in  his  indictment  of  private  land-ownership : 

1st,  It  is  the  cause  why  “material  progress 
does  not  only  fail  to  relieve  poverty,”  but  “actu- 
ally produces  it.”  He  assumes  the  fact  that  the 
rich  become  richer,  whilst  the  poor  grow  poorer. 
“It  makes  the  struggle  for  existence  grow  more 
intense.” 

2nd,  It  is  the  cause  why,  “in  spite  of  the  in- 
crease in  production  power,  wages  do  tend  to  a 
minimum  which  will  give  but  a bare  living.” 

3rd,  It  is  the  “primary  cause  of  recurring  par- 
oxysms of  industrial  depression.” 

That  “political  economy,  as  at  present  taught” 
is  in  opposition  to  his  doctrine,  Mr.  George  most 
frankly  admits,  but  it  is  the  fault  of  the  science 
as  taught,  not  of  the  science  as  he  intends  to 
teach  it.  “That  after  a century  of  cultivation, 
during  which  it  has  engrossed  the  attention  of 
some  of  the  most  subtle  and  powerful  intellects, 
it  should  l)e  spurned  by  the  statesmen,  scouted  by 
the  masses,  and  relegated  in  the  opinion  of  many 


NATURAL  RIGHT. 


189 


educated  and  thinking  men  to  the  rank  of  a pseudo- 
science in  which  nothing  is  fixed  and  can  be  fixed, 
must,  it  seems  to  me,  be  due,  not  to  any  inability 
of  the  science  when  properly  pursued,  but  to  some 
false  step  in  the  premises,  or  overlooked  factor 
in  its  estimates.” — (Introduction  to  Progress  and 
Poverty.) 

Since  private  ownership  in  land  is  charged  with 
causing  the  rich  to  get  richer  and  the  poor  to  grow 
poorer,  it  is  right  to  summon  reliable  witnesses  in 
order  to  ascertain  whether  the  facts  are  such  as 
represented.  We  shall  summon  Messrs.  M.  G. 
Mulhall,  iyContemporary,  December,  1886,)  E.  At- 
kinson, {^Century,  December,  1886,  and  January, 
1887,)  and  George  Gunton  {Forum,  March,  1887). 

Mr.  Mulhall  testifies  that  between  1875  and 
1885,  the  population  of  the  three  kingdoms  has 
increased  12  per  cent.;  wealth  has  gained  22  per 
cent.  Nor  has  the  increased  wealth  been  alto- 
gether absorbed  by  Dives ; some  crumbs  have 
fallen  to  Lazarus.  Pauperism  has  decreased  ; in 
1850  there  were  48  paupers  to  every  thousand 
inhabitants;  in  1885,  the  rate  had  fallen  to  27. 
The  consumption  of  some  articles  of  food,  which 
mark  an  advance  in  the  condition  of  the  poor,  has 


140 


('•WNKRSnir  AM) 


become  much  larger.  In  1875  the  consumption 
■of  meat  was  95  lbs.  per  head,  in  1S85  it  rose  to 
106  lbs.  Sugar,  which  was  consumed  at  the  rate 
of  63  lbs.  in  1875,  sweetened  the  British  palate 
with  75  lbs.  in  1885.  Tea  gently  stimulated  their 
nerves  with  73  oz.  in  1875,  and  80  oz.  in  1885. 

' Probably  a much  more  significant  fact  is  the 
increase  of  deposits  in  the  savings  banks,  and 
mutual  societies;  unfortunately  we  have  neither 
the  number  nor  the  average  amount  of  deposits ; 
but  the  total,  during  the  same  period  rose  from 
87  millions  to  156  millions.  Mr.  Mulhall  asserts 
that  the  accumulations  of  the  working  classes 
have  averaged  seven  millions  sterling  per  annum. 
On  the  contrary  the  share  of  the  capitalist, 
denoted  by  the  rate  of  interest,  has  gone  down 
and  the  share  of  the  land-owner  has  undergone 
even  a greater  proportional  reduction;  in  forty 
years  it  has  fallen  from  45  to  2 1 per  cent,  of  the 
agricultural  products,  and  “if  we  include  land 
used  for  manufacturing  and  commercial  purposes 
. . . instead  of  ‘swallowing  up  the  whole  gain,’ 
during  the  last  200  years,  relatively  to  the  total 
wealth  produced,  it  has  fallen  over  55  per  cent.” 
— (G.  Gunton,  Forum,  March,  p.  19-20.) 


NATURAL  RIGHT. 


141 


To  this  side  of  the  picture  there  is  a contrast 
which  we  do  not  wish  to  conceal.  While  the 
great  mass  of  the  English  people  have  been 
greatly  benefited,  it  is  undoubtedly  true  that  a 
large  number  of  day-laborers  have  sunk  to  a 
deplorable  condition.  But  is  it  because  rent 
swallows  up  the  increase  of  wealth?  Not  in  the 
least,  since  rent  goes  down,  while  wealth  goes 
up.  No,  the  reasons  are  very  different.  The 
first  one  is  found  in  the  improvidence  and  vices 
of  many ; the  second  in  the  greed  of  some 
capitalists  and  some  land-owners ; the  third  is  in 
the  wasting  of  human  energies  brought  on  by  a 
feverish  activity ; and  the  fourth,  which  is  perhaps 
the  cause  of  the  third,  is  the  keen  and  unchecked 
competition  which  reduces  the  profits  to  a 
minimum.  These  causes  would  prove  equally 
active,  if  the  rent  were  paid  to  the  State ; hence 
Mr.  George  was  perfectly  right  when  he  said  that 
even  if  we  abolished  private  property  in  land, 
there  would  be  room  for  tyranny  and  oppression. 
The  causes  that  we  have  mentioned  are  closely 
connected  with  human  nature,  such  as  it  is  now, 
and  such  as  it  will  remain  to  the  end  of  time ; if 
we  would  reach  the  main  causes  of  human  suffer- 


142 


OWNKKSIIII’  AND 


ings,  we  must  check  human  passions,  and  correct 
vices  rather  than  modify  social  adjustments. 

Another  observation  which  die  liright  picture 
drawn  by  Mr.  Mulhall  suggests  to  the  mind  of  the 
reader,  is  this ; While  England  becomes  more 
and  more  prosperous,  poor  Ireland  suffers  the 
pangs  of  starvation.  The  [o6  lbs.  which,  ac- 
cording to  statistics,  should  go  to  maintain  the 
physical  strength  of  every  British  subject  within 
the  United  Kingdom,  hardly  ever  appear  on  the 
board  of  the  poor  Irish  laborer ; his  share  goes 
to  line  the  stomach  of — somebody  else ; John 
Bull  is  a powerful  and  well-fed  fellow.  He  has 
several  times  appropriated  the  soil  of  Ireland  and 
divided  it  off  to  suit  himself — besides  forbidding 
his  weaker  neighbor  to  use  his  industry  to  make 
up  for  confiscation. — That,  under  such  conditions, 
he  should  take  more  than  his  share  of  beef,  is 
just  what  might  be  expected.  When  we  said  that 
private  ownership  in  land,  sanctioned  by  just  laws, 
is  perfectly  legitimate,  we  never  meant  to  say 
that  every  sort  of  land-ownership,  in  whatever 
manner  obtained,  is  equally  entitled  to  our  consid- 
eration. But  capital  also,  may  be  obtained  by  fraud 
or  by  violence,  and  we  fully  admit  with  Mr.George 


NATURAL  RIGHT. 


143 


that  never  did  fraud  or  violence  confer  a valid  title. 

If  the  condition  of  England  has  improved,  the 
progress  of  the  United  States  has  been  marvelous 
also.  From  i860  to  1880,  population  increased 
at  the  rate  of  62.69  per  cent.;  but  wealth  went  up 
at  the  rate  of  154.92  per  cent.!  In  1877  the  de- 
posits in  the  savings  banks  amounted  to  ^866,- 
218,306:  the  number  of  depositors  was  2,395,314, 
the  average  account  of  each  deposit  ^366.50.  In 
1885,  according  to  the  Statistical  Abstract  for 
that  year,  the  grand  total  amounted  to  11,095,- 
172,147.  But  as  distribution  had  divided  the 
savings  faster  than  production  had  swelled  the 
total,  we  find  the  number  of  depositors  to  be 
3,071,495,  whilst  the  average  deposit  is  reduced 
to  $356.56.  In  Massachusetts  the  progress  of  the 
savings  banks,  as  shown  by  Mr.  Atkinson,  Table 
XIII,  is  yet  more  remarkable.  But  there  the 
average  deposit  has  followed  the  upward  move- 
ment of  the  grand  total,  it  has  risen  from  $205.62 
to  $323-99' 

The  remarks  with  which  Mr.  Atkinson  accom- 
panies his  tables  are  no  less  valuable  than  the 
tables  themselves,  we  beg  leave  to  quote  the 
following : 


]i4 


(iWNKKSllll'  AND 


“ In  the  judgment  of  tlie  Commissioner  of 
Savings  Banks,  and  of  many  others  who  are 
competent  to  form  an  opinion,  at  least  three- 
fourths  of  the  present  d-eposits  in  these  banks 
(•the  !\IassachuT;etts  Savings  Banks)  belong  to 
tliose  are  strictly  of  the  working  classes,  in  the 
limited  sense  in  which  those  whose  daily  work  is 
necessary  to  their  daily  bread  make  use  of  that 
term.”  (The  italics  are  ours).  Figures  supplied 
])y  the  United  States  Bureau  of  Statistics  seem  to 
prove  that  the  daily  bread  has  been  improved. 
In  1867,  the  consumption  of  wheat  per  capita  was 
5.68  bushels;  in  1884  it  had  reached  6.66.  Sugar, 
in  i860,  sweetened  our  palates  at  the  rate  of 
25.87  lbs.;  in  1880,  we  had  each  39.62  lbs.  of 
linked  sweetness ; but  we  took  such  fancy  to  it 
ourselves,  or  bought  so  much  candy  for  the  little 
ones,  that  the  consumption  rose  to  53.25  in  1884. 
(Abstract  p.  144.  Compare  Remaining  for  con- 
sumption with  Popidationl)  It  is  true  we  assume 
that  the  quantity  left  for  heyne  consumption  has 
been  really  consumed  ; to  obtain  very  exact  fig- 
ures the  waste  should  be  subtracted,  but  it  is 
next  to  impossible  to  ascertain  the  waste  in  sugar, 
and  we  deem  our  figures  a fair  approximation. 


NATURAL  RIGHT. 


145 


nothing  more.  We  have  been  unable  to  ascer- 
tain the  consumption  of  meat,  principally  on 
account  of  the  canned  meats  which  can  be  pre- 
served for  a very  long  time,  so  that  nothing  can 
be  concluded  from  the  amount  sla^ightered. 

With  regard  to  tea  and  coffee,  the  tabulation 
contained  in  page  143,  Statistical  Abstract,  1885, 
gives  the  following  results : Tea,  peT-  capita,  in 
1862,  0.71  lb.;  in  1868,  0.97  lb.;  in  1885,  1.15  lbs. 
Coffee,  in  1862,  3.46  lbs.;  in  1868,  6.52;  in  1885, 
9.49  lbs. 

We  do  not  consider  these  figures  as  making  up 
a perfect  demonstration ; every  one  knows  how 
easily  we  may  be  led  astray  by  a false  interpre- 
tation of  statistics,  but  we  contend  that  they  have 
much  more  weight  than  any  amount  of  individual 
observations,  and  that,  when  pointing  to  the  same 
result,  they  form  a concurrent  testimony  which 
cannot  be  overruled  by  a fair-minded  judge. 

But  if,  notwithstanding  individual  cases  of  se- 
vere hardships,  it  cannot  be  truly  said  that  the 
poor  in  general  are  becoming  poorer,  it  is  true 
the  rich  are  growing  richer,  and  that,  on  the  part 
of  capital,  there  is  a tendency  to  concentration.  It 
may  become  a danger,  but  is  not  in  itself  an  evil. 


140 


OWNERSlIIl’  AND 


Mr.  Cicorge  seems  to  l)e  of  this  opinion;  “Tlie 
concentration  that  is  going  on  in  all  branches  of 
industry  is  a necessary  tendency  of  our  advance 
in  the  material  arts.  It  is  not  in  itself  an  evil. 
If  in  anything  i^s  results  are  evil,  it  is  simply  l^e- 
cause  of  our  bad  social  adjustments.” — (Social 
Problems,  c.  xvii,  p.  205.) 

Mr.  Thiers  does  not  dread  the  large  fortunes 
that  are  built  up  by  concentration  : “These  ac- 
cumulations of  wealth,  which  so  readily  catch  the 
eye,  are  neither  as  numerous  nor  as  vast  as  fancy 
pictures  them.  Should  men  get  into  their  heads 
to  divide  them,  but  a trifling  amount  could  be 
allotted  to  each  of  the  sharers.  We  would  have 
taken  away  the  incentive  which  conjures  up  labor 
and  the  means  of  paying  for  the  noblest  efforts 
of  skill.  In  a word,  the  plan  of  God  would  have 
been  marred,  and  nobody  would  have  grown 
wealthier.” — (De  la  Propriete,  p.  33.) 

The  next  count  in  the  indictment  has  no  more 
weight  than  the  first.  Private  ownership  in  the 
land  does  not  force  down  the  wages,  for  the  very 
simple  reason  that  wages  in  general  do  not  go 
down.  Mr.  Atkinson,  in  Table  N,  XII,  exhibits 
the  following  results:  In  i860,  the  wages  of  a 


NATURAL  RIGHT. 


147 


workman  of  average  skill  were  j^i.68;  in  1885, 
they  had  risen  to  ^2.04.  Skillful  workmen  re- 
ceived $2.37  in  i860,  and  $3.00  in  1885.  In  the 
mean  time,  from  i860  to  1885,  valuable  tables 
calculated  by  Mr.  Grosvenor  shoi^'^  that  the  ad 
vance  of  the  dollar  compared  with  two  hundred 
commodities  has  been  from  i to  1.2644.  But  as 
we  do  not  wish  to  argue  for  the  sake  of  arguing, 
we  must  draw  attention  to  a fact,  which  may  de- 
note a momentary  oscillation,  or  a permanent 
condition  brought  about  by  the  ordinary  laws  of 
industrial  equilibrium.  Whilst  skilled  labor  has 
retained  its  hold,  labor  of  average  skill  has  lost  a 
little  ground  between  1881  and  1885.  The  deflec- 
tion is  expressed  by  the  two  numbers  2.18  and 
2.04;  in  other  words,  the  loss  of  average  labor  has 
amounted  to  fourteen  cents  nominal  wages  per 
diem.  In  our  opinion  this  is  due  to  a large  impor- 
tation of  the  same  class  of  labor  from  Europe, 
yet  it  is  a fact  that  challenges  the  attention  of  the 
poor  workman’s  friend  ! 

We  feel  confident  that  the  depression  is  only 
momentary,  but  even  at  the  present  rate  it  re- 
mains true  that  skilled  labor  has  gained,  since 
i860,  63  cents  per  day,  and  that  workmen  of 


NATURAL  RIGHT. 


; 48 

of  average  .skill  have  gained  36  cents,  whilst  tin; 
pti’rchasing  power  of  one  dollar  has  increased  to 
1.2644.  These  facts  justify  the  following  asser- 
tion of  Mr.  Atkinson  : “At  the  preselit  time,  and 
at  present  prices  the  gold  dollar  will  buy  twenty- 
si.x  per  cent,  more  than  in  i860.  That  is  to  say, 
wages  are  now'  as  high  or  higher  than  they  were 
from  1865  to  1872  in  paper,  and  much  higher  than 
they  Avere  in  i860  in  gold;  they  are  now  paid  in 
gold  coin  or  its  equivalent.  This  gold  coin  will  buy 
the  commodities  which  are  necessary  to  subsist- 
ence, in  the  ratio  of  126  units  now,  relatively  to  75 
units  in  1872,  and  to  57^  units  in  1865,  or  to  100 
units  in  i860.  Wages  have  increased  absolutely 
and  relatively,  while  profits  have  decreased  rela- 
tively in  much  greater  proportion.” 

The  same  result  is  reached  if  we  consider  the 
margin  of  profit  on  a gi\'en  quantity  of  produce, 
and  the  quantity  of  produce  devoted  to  the  pay- 
ment of  wages.  For  the  elucidation  of  this  fact, 
Ave  beg  leave  to  refer  the  reader  to  the  article  of 
Mr.  Gunton,  in  the  Forum  of  March,  1887,  p.  18. 

Hut  hoAv  is  it  that  we  hear  so  many  complaints  ? 
In  the  first  place,  we  shall  always  hear  numerous 
complaints.  Moreover  we  have  ourselves  pointed 


NATUKAI-  RIGHT. 


149 


out  an  oscillation  of  14  cents  in  the  wages  paid  to 
labor  of  the  second  class.  Those  temporary  losses 
always  excite  complaints,  whilst  a rise  seldom  is 
gratefully  acknowledged.  Next,  we  must  observe 
that  the  ambition  of  man,  or  his  acquired  wants, 
are  apt  to  grow  faster  than  the  means  to  satisfy 
them.  Moreover,  it  is  a certain  fact  that  con- 
sumption in  America  is  extremely  wasteful.  This 
is  shown  by  the  thrift  of  many  families  whicli 
enjoy  greater  comforts  than  others,  and  yet  in- 
crease their  little  board  steadily,  by  the  side  of 
others  that  have  precisely  the  same  means  of 
bettering  their  condition,  but  remain  miserably 
poor,  and  are  always  on  the  verge  of  starvation. 
Lastly,  improvidence  and  restlessness  are  com- 
mon failings,  especially  among  the  young  men 
who  happen  to  be  beyond  the  reach  of  family 
ihfluences. 

Let  it  not  be  understood  that  we  deny  the  con- 
stant outcropping  of  abuses,  or  the  existence  of 
undeserved  hardships ; we  have  too  often  con- 
versed with  the  poor,  entered  their  humble  cot- 
tages, partaken  of  their  simple  but  hearty  cheer, 
to  ignore  their  sufferings,  or  to  be  without  a heart 
that  can  bleed  for  them  ; what  we  maintain  is,  that 


OWNERSHIP  AND 


ir)0 

in  this  Avorld,  it  is  impossible  to  dry  the  well-springs 
of  human  tears.  Suffering  has  its  mission,  and  suf- 
fering there  M^ill  be  unto  the  end  of  the  world ; 
the  key  to  its  significance  must  be  found  in  the 
teachings  of  the  Gospel.  We  must  do  all  in  our 
power  to  assuage  grief,  but  we  cannot  stamp  it 
out. 

To  make  land  national  property  would  be  un- 
availing. Factory  operatives  would  not  rent  farm 
lands  from  the  State  any  more  than  they  do  from 
private  individuals ; even  in  the  present  state  of 
things,  it  is  an  easy  matter  for  any  man  to  get 
land  enousfh  to  wrest  from  it  his  subsistence  in 
exchange  for  the  sweat  of  his  brow ; but  division 
of  labor  has  reared  walls  of  separation  which  have 
made  the  transformation  and  interchange  of  labor 
a matter  of  far  gredter  difficulty  than  before.  If 
lIic  factory  operatives  would  leave  their  work- 
shops for  the  fields,  they  would  as  a rule  prove 
but  very  indifferent  farmers ; we  have  seen  it 
tried  over  and  over  again. 

Seldom  can  a trained  workman  be  contented 
Avithout  the  whirr  and  buzz  of  machinery;  he 
needs  the  excitement  of  vast  and  unceasing  pro- 
duction. Too  often  he  seeks  the  intoxicating  air 


NATURAL  RIGHT. 


151 


of  great  cities,  although  by  rushing  into  the  haunts 
of  men,  he  knows  that  he  will  make  competition 
keener,  and  raise  the  rent  of  the  humblest  dwel- 
ling. He  will  rather  starve  in  a great  centre, 
than  thrive  in  a quiet  abode.  The  chief  remedy 
is  a moral  one : the  workman  must  learn  not  to 
3'earn  after  the  unattainable,  and  the  capitalist 
must  understand  that  it  is  not  only  his  duty,  but 
also  his  interest,  to  afford  his  employees  all  the 
compensations  to  which  a life  of  drudgery  and 
toil  is  entitled.  Away  with  the  monstrous  prin- 
ciple that  Corporations  need  not  have  a soul ! A 
moral  as  well  as  a physical  organism,  when  bereft 
of  spirit,  is  not  a live  but  a dead  thing. 

In  order  to  fasten  the  responsibility  for  social 
evils  on  land  ownership,  Mr.  George  is  compelled 
to  dispose  of  the  obvious  objection  that  wages 
being  taken  out  of  capital,  the  antagonism  is 
between  the  greed  of  the  capitalist,  and  the 
aspirations  of  the  working  class.  Right  loyally 
and  heartily  does  he  set  out  to  upset  the  received 
theory. 

“I  am  aware  that  the  theorem  that  wages  are 
drawn  from  capital  is  one  of  the  most  fundamental 
and  apparently  best  settled  of  current  political 


152 


OWNERSHIP  AND 


economy,  and  that  it  has  been  accepted  as 
axiomatic  by  all  the  greatest  thinkers  who  have 
devoted  their  powers  to  the  elucidation  of  the 
science.  Nevertheless,  1 think  it  can  be  demon- 
strated to  be  a fundamental  error — the  fruitful 
parent  of  a long  series  of  errors,  which  vitiate 
the  most  important  practical  conclusions.” — 
[Progress  and  Poverty,  Chap,  i.) 

Now'  wdien  we  poor  Philistines  find  that  a 
proposition  received  as  axiomatic  by  all  the  great 
thinkers  who  have  elucidated  a science,  clashes 
wdth  our  preconceived  opinions,  \ve  conclude  that 
our  opinions  are  ill-grounded,  or  that  we  have 
not  well  understood  the  axiom.  What  then  is  the 
meaning  of  this  formula,  V/ages  are  drawn  from 
capital?  Evidently  this,  that  a capitalist  in  order 
to  employ  labor  must  have  in  the  present 
economic  wmrld,  besides  a certain  amount  of  fixed 
capital  invested  in  the  plant  itself,  another  amount 
of  circulating  capital  to  pay  for  labor.  Or,  taking 
the  other  term  of  the  relation,  that  a workman 
will  not  begin  his  toil  unless  he  be  morally  sure 
that  he  will  receive  for  his  labor  a compensation 
in  circulating  capital,  with  which  he  may  buy  the 
necessaries  of  life  for  himself  and  family.  To  us 


NATURAL  RIGHT. 


153 


this  axiom  looks  just  as  evident  as  it  seemed  to 
the  greatest  thinkers  who  elucidated  the  science. 
How  does  Mr.  George  upset  it? 

By  a reductio  ad  absurdum. 

“In  the  formula,  the  wages  of  labor  are  drawn 
from  capital,  substitute  for  the  term  capital  its 
equivalent ; according  to  the  very  authors  who 
cling  to  the  axiom,  capital  is  stored  up  or  accu- 
mulated labor.  (The  expression  of  Lassalle, 
crystallized  labor,  is  prettier  yet.)  The  proposi- 
tion then  reads : the  wages  of  labor  are  drawn  from 
stored  up  labor,"  Well!  what  of  that?  In  the 
first  place  let  us  not  take  a metonymy  for  a literal 
expression.  Capital  is  the  product  of  labor,  not 
labor  itself.  Labor  is  transient  and,  as  economists 
say,  it  does  not  keep,  but  the  result  may  be  per- 
manent. If  you  choose  to  take  the  cause  for  the 
effect  as  men  constantly  do,  chiefly  in  poetry, 
nothing  prevents  you  from  using  the  term  con- 
densed or  stored  up  or  crystallized  labor  for  the 
word  capital,  only  you  cannot  base  an  economic 
argument  on  a figure  of  speech — Yet  It  is  absurd 
to  say  that  the  reward  of  the  first  exertion  is 
stored  up  labor — Certainly,  and  nobody  asserts 
this  absurdity.  Economists  indeed  say  that 


154 


OWNICRSIIII’  AND 


nature  contributes  the  first  capital,  but  their 
meaning  is  cpiitc  plain  ; the  bounty  of  nature  is  to 
the  first  work,  what  capital  is  to  labor  in  a more 
advanced  state  of  civilization.  We  see  nothing 
absurd  in  that. 

But  the  workman  produces  wealth  before  he  is 
paid,  this  wealth  is  the  reward  of  his  exertions 
and  should  be  considered  as  his  natural  economic 
wages — Possibly  so,  but  he  does  not  want  it;  he 
wants  cash  or  the  equivalent;  he  cannot  support 
his  family  on  pig  iron,  railroad  track,  or  tunnel ; 
before  engaging  in  the  work,  he  must  know  that 
there  is  cash  somewhere  to  reward  him  for  his 
labor,  and  this  is  all  that  economists  affirm  as  an 
axiomatic  principle. 

Moreover  Mr.  George  tacks  oa  to  that  axiom 
the  Wage  Fund  theory,  wliich  consists  in  assert- 
ing that  at  any  moment  there  is  a fixed  amount 
of  capital  to  be  divided  among  the  workmen,  so 
that  the  standard  wages  could  be  found  by 
dividing  that  amount  into  the  number  of  work- 
men. This  is  what  Karl  Marx  and  others  call 
the  Iron  Law  of  Wages.  It  is  an  iron  law  whose 
consequences  are  far  reaching,  but  Mr.  George 
might  have  mentioned  that  Mr.  Mill  whom  he 


NATURAL  RIGHT. 


155 


quotes  as  authority,  found  out  that  he  was  mis- 
taken, and  loyally  acknowledged  his  error ; that 
the  French  school  never  accepted  it,  and  that 
standard  English  authorities  like  Stanley  Jevons 
have  admitted  it  was  a Fool's  Paradise. 

But  Mr.  Thornton,  who  was,  after  Mr,  Longe, 
the  staunchest  adversary  of  the  Wage  Fund,  is 
equally  liable  to  objection,  for  he  holds  “ that 
wages  are  drawn  from  capital.”  “Prof.  Francis 
A.  Walker  still  admits  that  wages  are  in  large 
part  drawn  from  capital.”  Of  course  they  are, 
but  take  away  the  iron  fixity  of  the  Wage  Fund, 
and  you  leave  the  competition  of  capitalists  to 
secure  labor,  and  the  competition  of  labor  to 
secure  employment  to  modify  the  rate  of  wages. 
Iron  fixity  has  disappeared,  human  activity  is  set 
free,  and  the  law  itself  ceases  to  be  objectionable. 

“If  wages  depend  upon  the  ratio  between  the 
amount  of  labor  seeking  employment  and  the 
amount  of  capital  devoted  to  its  employment,  the 
relative  abundance  or  scarcity  of  one  factor  must 
mean  the  relative  scarcity  or  abundance  of  the 
other” — Yes,  all  other  things  being  equal ; but  sup- 
pose that  the  eagerness  to  invest  is  the  same,  and 
that  the  available  quantity  of  labor  is  fixed,  then 


156 


OWNlCRSmi'  AND 


the  increase  of  capital  will  bring  as  a necessary 
consecjuence  a rise  in  wages,  because  capitalists 
will  compete  to  secure  labor. 

“Interest  is  high  where  wages  are  high,  and 
low  where  wages  are  low.”  Often  this  happens 
to  be  true  ; nay  more,  the  three  factors  into  which 
Mr.  George  divides  production  rise  sometimes 
together.  Why?  because  the  joint  product  of 
land,  labor  and  capital  happens  to  be  so  much 
larger  than  it  was  before  that  some  part  of  it  goes 
to  the  land-owner,  some  to  the  workman,  some  to 
the  land-holder.  Professor  Cairnes  accounts  for 
the  low  rate  of  interest  in  prosperous  but  slowly 
progressing  countries  by  the  fact  that  a great 
deal  of  circulating  capital  must  have  been  trans- 
formed into  fixed  capital.  The  explanatio.n  is 
certainly  “very  ingenious,”  but  there  is  another 
fact  which  must  not  be  forgotten.  In  a new 
country  the  opportunities  are  exceptional.  For 
instance,  iron  ore  may  be  found  close  to  the 
surface,  or  coal  may  be  mined  with  very  little 
expense,  fields  may  be  covered  with  harvests 
without  requiring  fertilizers,  etc.  Thus  the  out- 
lay is  less,  and  therefore  leaves  a greater  margin. 
In  the  ec^uation : Produce  = Rent  + Wages  + 


NATURAL  RIGHT. 


157 


Interest  (supposing  the  statement  to  be  correct), 
let  us  not  forget  that  Produce  is  the  compound 
result  of  capital,  labor,  and  the  bounty  of  nature. 
A variable  quantity  itself,  it  is  the  product  of 
three  quantities  which  may  influence  it  in  varying 
proportions.  The  equation  is  not  quite  as  simple 
as  the  statement  of  Mr.  George  would  lead  one 
to  believe,  nor  can  the  doctrine  of  standard  econ- 
omists be  overturned  by  such  arguments  as  the 
formula  P = R + W + I. 

The  last  count  is  summed  up  in  the  following 
lines : 

“ In  the  preceding  chapter  I have  shown  that 
the  speculative  advance  in  land-values  tends  to 
press  the  margin  of  cultivation,  or  production, 
beyond  its  normal  limit,  thus  compelling  labor 
and  capital  to  accept  of  a smaller  return,  or  (and 
this  is  the  only  way  they  can  resist  the  tendency) 
to  cease  production.” 

That  there  is  a tendency  in  human  nature  to 
absorb  profit,  we  readily  grant ; it  is  true  of  land- 
owners,  capital-owners  and  laborers  alike.  But 
that  the  check  is  sufficient  in  the  case  of  the 
land-owner  is  made  evident  by  the  fact  that  the 
proportion  coming  to  him  is  constantly  decreasing, 
as  Mr.  Gunton  has  shown  in  the  Forum  of  March, 


158 


OWNEKSIIJI'  y\NlJ 


1887.  As  Mr.  Atkinson  truly  observes,  rhe 
margin  of  the  planter  or  farmer  Is  extremely 
contracted. 

“ Raw  land  has  no  value,  and  kind  attains  value 
only  when  capital  and  labor  are  ap[)lied  to  its 
improvement.  The  investment  of  capital  in 
agriculture  is,  as  a general  mle,  much  greater  in 
bringing  the  land  into  productive  condition,  than 
it  is  in  the  investment  in  buildings  and  looIs  upon 
the  land.  A very  large  part  of  each  year’s  ex- 
penditure consists  in  maintaining  the  fertility  of 
the  soil  after  its  virgin  properties  begin  to  be 
exhausted,  in  building  and  maintaining  fences, 
and  in  other  uses  of  capital  which  is  often  utterly 
lost,  if  the  effort  is  suspended  even  for  a *very 
short  period.  What  proportion  of  the  value  of 
the  products  of  agriculture  can  be  assigned  as 
the  true  margin  of  profit,  it  is  impossible  to  state, 
but  it  is  well  known  to  be  very  small — much  less 
than  in  the  manufacturing  arts.” 

It  would  be  both  unjust  and  Inexpedient  co  lay 
heavier  burdens  on  so  deserving  a class  of  pro- 
ducers when  they  are  already  at  a disadvantage. 

Those  who  own  town  lots  on  Vv’hich  nothing 
grows  and  nothing  is  built,  are  in  reality  subjected 
to  a fine ; while  the  ground  brings  them  no  re- 
turn, the  owners  must  pay  a tax  which  in  some 
cities,  Philadelphia  for  instance,  amounts  to  the 


NATURAL  RIGHT. 


159 


full  value  of  the  ground  rent.  If  all  die  town  lots 
belonged  to  the  state,  empty  lots  would  pay 
nothing.  Moreover  speculations,  instead  of  being 
at  an  end,  would  become  compulsory.  Nobody 
could  rent  empty  lots  from  the  state  for  any  pur- 
pose but  speculation ; none  but  capitalists  could 
do  so.  The  question  would  be  this:  “How  can 
I make  money  by  holding  that  lot  within  the  term 
of  my  lease?”  If  the  capitalist  thought  that 
shanties  would  pay  him  best,  he  would  erect 
shanties;  what  would  be  done  afterwards  with 
the  lot,  would  be  to  him  a matter  of  supreme  in- 
difference. Besides,  after  seeing  society  rescind 
all  past  enactments,  by  taking  the  property  from 
private  owners,  nobody  would  be  inclined  to  trust 
that  faithless  being  that  would  have  said  once : 
“My  will  is  law!  Let  vested  rights  give  way 
before  my  will !”  Reflection  will  convince  any 
man  who  knows  human  nature  that  such  a tam- 
pering with  vested  rights  would  be  inexpedient 
as  well  as  unlawful. 

Large  investments  either  in  agricultural  lands, 
or  in  town  lots,  might,  if  injudicious,  contribute, 
in  some  measure,  to  a financial  depression ; but 
this  cause  being  chiefly  local,  would  hardly  in- 


100 


OWNERSilir  ANl) 


fluence  the  financial  condition  of  a great  com- 
monwealth. Obstinate  clinging  to  unimproved 
property  might  also  create  some  uneasiness  in  a 
great  city,  but  self  interest  is  probably  the  best 
corrective.  In  other  words,  although  the  dog-in- 
the-manger  is  not,  as  the  Dodo,  an  extinct  species, 
it  does  not  seem  to  be  a sufficiently  dangerous 
animal  to  require  special  legislation.  Take  all 
the  abuses  which  we  have  mentioned,  group  them 
together,  you  will  have  proved  nothing  but  that 
abuses  may  sometimes  require  a check,  a position 
which  few  men  will  gainsay. 

Karl  Marx  fully  understood  that  the  most  pre- 
valent cause  of  recurring  depressions  was  the 
unwise  investment  of  capital : 

“The  enormous  power  inherent  in  the  factory 
system,  of  expanding  by  jumps,  and  the  depen- 
dence of  that  system  on  the  markets  of  the  world, 
necessarily  beget  feverish  production,  followed 
by  overflowing  of  the  markets,  whereupon  con- 
traction of  the  markets  brings  on  crippling,  of 
production,  crisis  and  stagnation.  The  uncer- 
tainty and  instability  to  which  machinery  subjects 
the  employment,  and  consequently  the  conditions 
of  existence,  of  the  operatives  become  normal, 
owing  to  these  periodic  changes  of  the  industrial 
cycle.  Except  in  the  periods  of  prosperity,  there 


NATURAL  RIGHT. 


KU 


rages  between  the  capitalists  the  most  furious 
combat  for  the  share  of  cash  in  the  market.  . . . 
There  also  comes  a time  in  every  industrial  cycle 
when  a forcible  reduction  of  wages  beneath  the 
value  of  the  labor  power,  is  attempted  for  the 
purpose  of  cheapening  commodities.” — (Capital, 
vol.  2,  p.  455,  edited  by  F.  Engels.) 

This  indeed  is  a real  cause  of  recurring  parox- 
ysms of  financial  depression.  But  would  State 
ownership  cure  the  evil  ? We  think  it  would 
make  the  paroxysms  both  more  acute  and  more 
lasting.  In  the  present  social  adjustments,  the 
errors  of  capitalists  are  individual ; did  the  State 
attempt  to  handle  the  whole  capital  of  a nation, 
the  blunders  would  become  national.  Can  we 
make  the  rulers  infallible  in  matters  which  are 
much  better  adapted  to  the  special  training  of 
thousands  of  capitalists,  whose  intellect  is  made 
keener  and  more  active  by  the  incentive  of  self- 
interest  ? Again,  we  appeal  to  those  who  have 
studied  men,  not  as  they  are  in  some  books,  but 
as  they  walk  the  earth,  with  the  powers  and  pas- 
sions which  ferment  in  the  human  breast. 

According  to  many  economists,  supported  both 
by  English  and  German  official  reports,  the  last 
crisis  was  chiefly  due  to  relative  overproduction. 


OWNEKSIIII'  AND 


]62 

When  so  many  forces  are  at  play,  it  is  often  dif- 
ficult to  point  out  the  leading  one  ; but  facts  seem 
to  prove  that  this  opinion  is  substantially  correct. 
If  we  take,  for  instance,  the  production  of  cotton, 
we  find  that  in  1886  the  yield  in  this  country 
amounted  to  2,154,476  bales;  in  1875  it  was 
3,827,845;  in  1883  it  rose  to  6,949,756;  in  1885 
it  fell  to  5,706,165.  One  million  bales  remaining 
unemployed  for  a certain  length  of  time  means 
at  least  fifty  millions  of  dollars  which  remain  idle 
during  the  same  period.  The  capacity  of  facto- 
ries and  the  wants  of  society  increasing,  the 
surplus  is  absorbed  sooner  or  later ; but  those 
sudden  expansions  and  contractions  must  cause 
some  disorder  in  the  economic  world.  The  pro- 
duction of  pig  iron  increases  more  steadily,  but 
demand  does  not  always  keep  pace  with  produc- 
tion. In  1883,  any  one  could  see  vast  yards  filled 
with  pig  iron  which  could  not  be  sold  at  remuner- 
ative prices.  Let  either  the  lavishness  of  nature 
or  the  eagerness  of  producers  overstep  the  re- 
quirements of  trade,  stagnation  must  follow.  Mr. 
George  denies  at  first  the  possibility  of  overpro- 
duction : “Manifestly  there  can  be  no  overpro- 
duction, in  any  general  or  absolute  sense,  untd 


NATURAL  RIGHT. 


168 


desires  for  wealth  are  all  satisfied.”  Of  course, 
all  the  desires  of  mankind  can  never  be  satisfied 
in  this  world,  “the  greed  of  man  is  insatiable”; 
but  the  question  is,  whether  in  attempting  to  meet 
those  desires,  too  much  labor  and  capital  may  not 
be  thrown  on  the  wrong  side,  and  turn  the  finan- 
cial scale.  This  the  gifted  writer  grants,  perhaps 
unconsciously,  when  he  adds:  “Relative  over- 
production there  may  be  ” {Social  Problems,  Ch. 
xii).  Just  so,  and  relative  overproduction  may 
often  account,  at  least  partially,  for  a financial 
crisis. 

Some  economists  have  attributed  the  depres- 
sion to  the  building  of  railroads,  “ running  from 
point  nowhere  to  point  nowhere,”  and  to  “the 
conversion  of  circulating  capital  into  fixed  cap- 
ital.” To  the  latter  statement,  Mr.  Moody  objects 
that  circulating  capital  is  not  either  destroyed  or 
converted  by  the  building  of  new  roads,  but  finds 
its  way  to  the  home  of  the  poor.  This  is  perfectly 
true,  but  circulating  capital  is  a stream  that  needs 
constant  feeding.  Should  270  millions  (the  amount 
estimated  by  the  writer  whom  Mr.  Moody  criti- 
cizes) be  absorbed  by  labor  which  would  create 
nothing  but  fixed  capital,  and'  should  that  fixed 


OWNKKSIIII'  AND 


l(i4 

capital  jneld  little  or  no  return,  an  important 
spring  would  he  dammed  up,  and  barrenness  he 
the  fatal  consecpience. 

Economists  have  mentioned  many  other  de- 
pressing influences,  such  as  war,  political  agitation, 
over-expansion  of  the  credit  system,  unsound 
currency,  want  of  confidence  in  [mhlic  honest)-. 
All  these  causes  may  have  their  share  in  bringing 
about  a crisis.*  The  immediate  occasion  is  some- 
times whimsical:  thus  in  1648,  tulips  did  some 
mischief  in  Holland  ; some  of  them  commanded 
the  extravagant  price  of  ^2,293.50.  The  whim 
passed  away,  and  the  lovely  flowers  faded,  without 
leaving  gold  in  their  stead. 

Mr.  George  thinks  that  this  great  variety  of 
statements  shows  that  economists  have  not 
reached  the  true  cause ; to  us  it  is  an  evidence 
of  the  care  with  which  they  have  tried  to  bring 
in  all  the  important  factors.  Simplicity  is  an  ex- 
cellent thing,  but  in  a complex  calculation,  we 
must  not  eliminate  factors  which  may  tell  on  the 
product.  And  yet,  when  we  search  carefully  the 
sad  records  of  crises,  we  find  beneath  economic 


* (We  bc^  leave  to  refer  the  reader  to  an  excellent  article  by  Mr, 
Horace  White  in  the  Cyclopedia  of  Political  Science,  V.  1.,  p.  523-) 


NATURAL  RIGHT. 


If)') 


phenomena,  two  underlying  causes,  miscalculation 
and  ambition,  that  will  ever  make  themselves  felt. 
And  thus  we  are  brought  back  to  the  old  Greek 

I 

philosopher : 

“To  have  no  bounds  is  the  very  nature  of 
ambition.  A more  thorough  cure  than  to  equalize 
possessions,  is  to  teach  those  who  by  tempera- 
ment are  good  and  moderate,  not  to  seek  more 
than  they  ought  to  have,  and  to  make  it  impossible 
for  the  greedy  and  the  wicked  to  get  more.  The 
latter  shall  be  powerless  if  they  be  few  in  number, 
and  justly  dealt  with.” 

Had  we  undertaken  to  refute  all  the  misleading 
statements  of  socialists,  more  time  and  talent 
would  have  been  required  than  has  fallen  to  our 
lot.  An  analysis  of  the  most_questionable  prem- 
ises seemed  to  us  all  that  was  needed. 

Mr.  George  loves  the  poor  and  hates  iniquity: 
We  do  not  question  his  sincerity,and  we  honor  him 
for  his  benevolence.  He  thought  he  had  found  a 
panacea  for  all  the  ailments  of  the  body  politic ; 
we  felt  convinced  that  his  diagnosis  was  wrong, 
and  that  his  panacea  would  turn  to  poison ; we 
have  said  so  bluntly  and  given  our  reasons. 
Were  we  allowed  to  express  a wish,  it  vrould  be 
this : may  he  continue  to  devote  his  unquestion- 


166 


OWNERSIItr  AND 


able  abilities  and,  singleness  of  purpose  to  '■lie 
cause  of  the  disinherited,  but  -without  giving 
lawful  property  holders  just  grounds  to  fear  for 
the  foundations  of  the  social  fabric.  Should  this 
wish  be  granted,  we  would  thank  our  Common 
Father  that  the  gifts  he  has  bountifully  bestowed, 
are  used  unsparingly  in  behalf  of  the  humblest 
among  his  children. 


3k^ 


PPENDIX. 


CHURCH  DECISIONS. 


Thou  shalt  not  covet  thy  neighbor’s  wife ; nor 
his  house,  nor  his  field,  nor  his  man-servant,  nor 
his  maid-servant,  nor  his  ox,  nor  his  ass,  nor  any 
thing  that  is  his.” — Deuteronomy,  v,  21. 

But  Peter  said : Ananias,  why  hath  satan 
tempted  thy  heart,  that  thou  shouldst  lie  to  the 
Holy  Ghost,  and  by  fraud  keep  part  of  the  price 

of  the  field  f 

Whilst  it  remained,  did  it  not  remain  to  thee?’^ 
— (While  it  remained,  was  it  not  thine  own  ? — King 
James’  translation,  and  revised  edition.) — ^^and 
being  sold,  was  it  not  in  thy  power  ? Why  hast 
thou  conceived  this  thing  in  thy  heart  ?” — The 
Acts,  V,  3,  4. 


The  decisions  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church 
on  questions  of  Faith  and  Morals  being  acknowl- 
edged as  final  by  over  two  hundred  and  twenty- 
five  millions  of  human  beings,  it  is  a matter  of 
great  importance  to  know  the  doctrine  held  by 
a tribunal  which  exercises  so  vast  a jurisdiction. 
Before  mentioning  some  of  the  official  utterances 


16T' 


108 


CHURCH  DECISIONS. 


we  must  define  the  Latin  word  Possessiones,  which 
is  often  met  with  both  in  mediaeval  documents 
and  in  the  writings  of  Theologians. 

Forcellini,  the  great  Latin  Lexicographer,  after 
defining  Possessio,  “the  fact,  or  the  right  of 
ownership,”  explains  the  meaning  of  the  plural 
Possessiones  by  quoting  Lestus,  Cicero,  Caesar, 
and  Sallust.  In  all  his  quotations,  it  means  landed 
property.  We  give  one  of  them  with  the  con- 
text: “ Domitius,  in  a public  address,  promises 
to  each  of  the  soldiers  a lot  of  four  acres  out  of 
his  own  estates  {possessionibus.)  Centurions  and 
veterans  shall  receive  a proportional  grant.” — 
(Caesar  de  Bello  Civili,  Lib.  L,  C.  XVII.) 

In  the  middle  ages,  even  the  singular  number 
usually  meant  a farm  {^prcedium^j  D’Arnis,  after 
Ducange  and  others,  quotes  the  following  defini- 
tion of  the  Salic  law  : “ Possessio — PrcBdium 

quod  quis  possidet — A farm  owned  by  some  one.” 

Possessiones  is  used  in  the  sense  of  landed 
estates  both  in  the  code  of  Theodosius  and  in  that 
of  Justinian.  We  select  a document  which  is 
found  in  both,  with  some  variations ; this  docu- 
ment besides  determininu' the  meaninofof  the  word 
possessiojics,  has  a consiclcraljle  historical  import- 


CHURCH  DECISIONS. 


]69 


ance.  It  is  an  edict  of  the  first  Christian  Emperor, 
Constantine,  bearing  the  date  of  April  29th,  A. 
D.,  334,  under  the  consulship  of  Proculus  and 
Paulinus, 

“ Whereas,  in  Sardinia,  both  Patrimonia|^^te^^ 
(fundis  Patrimonialibus,j  and  rented  lands  (SHf^phec- 
teate-cariis-j  have  been  divided  among  different 
owners ; the  division  of  estates  (possessionumj 
should  have  been  done  in  such  a manner  as  to  let 
slaves  remain  together  with  their  family  under  the 
same  master.  F or  v/ho  can  bear  that  parents  should 
be  severed  from  their  children,  sisters  from  their 
brothers,  husbands  from  their  wives.  Therefore,  let 
those  who  have  separated  them,  bring  them  again 
together.  If  those  who  thus  give  up  their  slaves 
suffer  loss,  let  them  be  compensated  by  the  land- 
owners  who  shall  receive  the  servants  thus  brought 
back.  Vigilance  must  be  exercised  lest  in  the 
province  there  should  be  any  more  complaints  that 
the  family  ties  of  slaves  are  severed.”  — (Codex 
Theod.  Jacob  Gothfred,  Lyons,  Cod.  it,  Tit.  XXV.,  ist 
vol.,  p.  199.) 

The  document  is  reproduced  in  the  Codex  of 
Justinian,  (lib.  1 1 1,  Tit.  xxxviii)  with  the  following 


170 


CHURCH  DECISIONS. 


differences:  ist,  The  edict  has  become  the  gen- 

eral law  of  the  empire,  hence  mention  of  Sardinia 
is  omitted.  2nd,  Besides  slaves  (servi,)  mention 
is  made  of  settlers  (colon!  adscriptitias  conditionis) 
and  the  tenants  (inquilini) — A division  of  property 
that  should  interfere  with  the  family  relations  of 
settlers  who  had  established  themselves  on  the 
land  with  the  consent  of  the  owners  on  condition 
of  paying  a yearly  due,  or  of  the  regular  tenant 
farmers,  was  prohibited  by  law. 

In  the  Institutes,  (lib.  3“,  Tit.  x,)  possessiones  is 
taken  in  another  sense  ; it  means  the  various  legal 
processes  by  which  an  heir  was  put  in  possession 
of  the  property  left  by  a relative  mTo  had  died 
intestate.  In  Canon  Law,  possessiones  usually 
means  Landed  Estate.  See  for  instance  the 
Corpus  Juris,  Causa  xiii,  q.  ii,  C.  i — Causa  xvi, 
quaestio  iii,  C.  i,  and  q.  iiii,  C.  i — q.  vi,  C.  vii, 
etc.,  etc.  Sometimes,  however,  the  word possessio 
is  found  with  the  meaning  of  Diocese  or  even  of 
country  Parish.  These  cases  are  exceptional.  . 

Communism  was  taught  by  the  Apostolics  or 
Apolactics,  as  early  as  the  second  century  of  the 
Christian  era.  St.  Augustine,  who  brands  their 
doctrine  as  the  40th  heresy,  speaks  of  them  as 


CHURCH  DECISIONS. 


171 


follows:  “The  Apostolics  proudly  assumed  that 
name  because  they  did  not  admit  to  their  Com- 
munion those  who,  being  married,  or  holding  prop- 
erty, swerved  from  the  practice  of  monks  and  of 
many  members  of  the  clergy  who  belong  to  the 
Catholic  Church.  They  were  heretics,  because 
separating  themselves  from  the  Church,  they  held 
that  those  could  not  hope  for  salvation  who  made 
use  of  the  riches  which  their  own  sect  did  not 
possess  . . . etc. — (De  haeresibus,  lib.  unus.) 

St.  Epiphanius  mentions  the  same  error  as  the 
sixty-first  heresy.  He  contrasts  with  it  the  true 
Catholic  teaching:  “The  Church  also  favors 
continence,  but  does  not  for  that  reason  condemn 
nuptials.'  She  cherishes  absolute  poverty,  but 
does  not  proudly  inveigh  against  those  who  obtain 
property  by  just  means  or  who  have  received  it 
from  their  parents,  to  meet  their  own  wants  and 
those  of  the  poor.  Many  within  her  pale  observe 
abstinence,  but  they  do  not  proudly  censure  those 
who  satisfy  their  hunger.” 

The  condemnation  of  these  sectaries  involves 
a censure  of  Socialism,  even  when  limited  to  Land 
Tenure  ; for  the  “property  received  from  parents” 
evidently  refers  chiefly  to  lands,  which  formed  at 
the  time  the  great  bulk  of  inherited  property. 


172 


CHURCH  HUCISIOXS. 


On  the  twelfth  day  of  May,  A.  D.,  1210,  Pope 
Innocent  III,  issued  a letter  prescribing  the  j^ro- 
fession  of  faith  to  be  made  by  the  Waldorses 
before  they  could  be  received  back  into  the 
Church.  This  formula  contains  the  following 
declaration : “We  profess  and  believe  that  those 
who  remain  in  the  world  and  retain  their  posses- 
sions (sua  possidentes,)  making  use  of  their  riches 
to  give  alms  and  perform  works  of  mercy,  ob- 
serving at  the  same  time  the  commandments  of 
the  Lord,  will  be  saved.”  Surely  this  declaration 
comprises  landed  property,  for  wealth  in  the  shape 
of  capital  was,  at  the  time,  an  insignificant  factor. 

On  the  22nd  of  March,  1418,  Pope  Martin  V, 
condemned  45  pi'opositions  of  John  Wyckliffe. 
The  condemnation  is  contained  in  the  Bulls  ''Inter- 
Cunctas,”  and  "In  Eminentis'''  which  are  a confir- 
mation and  renewal  of  decrees  issued  by  the 
Council  of  Constance  three  years  before.  (See  the 
collection  of  Labbe,  Vol.  xii,  col.  45,  46,  47,  48, 
49.)  Among  those  condemned  propositions  we 
notice  the  following:  “10.  That  ecclesiastics 
should  hold  property  is  against  Holy  Writ.”  “33. 
Pope  Sylvester  and  the  Emperor  Constantine 
erred  in  settling  property  (dotando)  on  the 


CHURCtt  DECISIONS. 


173 


Church.”  “36.  The  Pope,  as  well  as  all  ecclesiastics 
who  possess  property,  are  heretics,  because  they 
hold  real  estate  (eo  quod  possessiones  habent,) 
those  also  a.re  heretics  who  agree  with  them, 
namely,  all  temporal  Lords  and  laymen.” 

Those  who  were  suspected  of  entertaining  the 
opinions  of  Wyckliffe,  or  of  Huss,  were  obliged  to 
answer  thirty-nine  questions.  The  34th  runs  as 
follows : “ Does  he  believe  that  ecclesiastics  may 

lawfully  and  without  sin  hold  in  this  world  both 
real  estate  and  temporal  goods  (possessiones  et 
bona  temporalia”)  (Bullit  Inter  ctmctas.)  Here 
possessiones  are  explicitly  distinguished  from  other 
kinds  of  wealth.  It  needs  no  argument  to  show' 
that  if  it  be  not  unlawful  for  ecclesiastics,  who  are 
bound  to  follow  Christ  more  closely  than  others, 
to  own  land,  such  ownership  cannot  be  a boldy 
bare,  enormous  lurong. 

There  are  many  Bulls,  encyclical  letters  and 
allocutions  in  which  both  Socialism  and  Com- 
munism are  condemned,  but  hoping  that  the 
reader  will  consult  the  original  documents, 
deem  it  sufficient  to  quote  the  followin' 
which  the  doctrine  of  the  Church 
fined.  Alluding  to  a treaty 


174 


CHURCH  HECISIONS. 


Elizabeth,  Queen  of  Spain,  Pius  IX,  speaks  as 
follows : 

“We  have  not  neglected  the  temporal  welfare 
of  the  Church;  for  with  all  zeal  and  energy,  we 
have  defended  and  maintained  the  riglit  whicli 
belongs  to  her,  to  acquire  and  hold  any  kind  of 
real  and  fi'uit-bcaring  property;  (quaecumcjue 
bona  stabilia  et  frugifera)  as  the  decisions  and 
precedents  of  numberless  Councils  and  holy 
Fathers  and  the  constitutions  of  our  predecessors 
have  clearly  established,  wisely  taught,  and  de- 
monstrated. Would  to  God  that  everywhere  on 
earth  and  in  every  part  of  the  world,  the  posses- 
sions given  to  God  and  his  Holy  Church  had 
remained  inviolate  and  had  been  treated  with  due 
respect.  We  would  not  be  compelled  to  bewail 
many  evils,  well  known  to  all,  and  many  damages 
suffered  by  civil  society,  all  of  which  have  sprung 
from  the  utterly  unjust  confiscation  of  Church 
goods  and  estates,  and  from  the  reckless  spolia- 
tion which  has,  in  a great  measure,  prepared  the 
oil  for  the  growth  of  those  most  pernicious  and 
tal  errors:  Socialism  and  Communism.” — 
Dcution,  Qtcilms  Ltulnosissmtis,  Sept, 
so  Encycl.  Oui  Plii-ribus,  Nov. 


